Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Transport Bill

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of many hundreds of transport workers in North Staffordshire:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the transport workers in North Staffordshire showeth that the Transport Bill will impose an additional tax burden on the road haulage and passenger transport industry, will reduce productivity, implement restrictive practices and increase costs.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this Transport Bill shall not be passed by your honourable House and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

AIRCRAFT ENGINE CONTRACTS

Return ordered,
of a Report of a Committee of Inquiry into certain contracts with Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Repair Work and Road Building

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport what action she is taking to reduce the time now spent on road repair work and road building in order to reduce inconvenience to the public generally.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The time allowed for the construction of road works takes account of all factors, including general inconvenience. Reducing the completion time often means additional cost, but, subject to that, we aim to complete all road works as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if British Railways took so long to repair their track and rebuild their bridges as many road engineers, there would be a revolution? Does he not think it time that his Department looked at the length of time taken on road works leading out of London, for example, and the discomfort caused to pedestrians and road users and the burden on the economy caused by the length of time taken?

Mr. Carmichael: I recognise that the construction of road works is a burden on the economy, but it is a temporary burden. The object of new roads is that great savings to the economy ultimately ensue. Every effort is made, but there are great difficulties, particularly in urban areas, and inconvenience for a short time is unavoidable.

Cambridge (By-pass Roads)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in planning the northern and western bypasses for Cambridge.

Mr. Carmichael: Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council, as our agent authority, has made preliminary investigations into possible routes for these new roads. They are being considered for inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool.

Mr. Lane: In connection with the northern bypass, would the hon. Gentleman please keep in mind the growth of industrial traffic between the Midlands and the East Coast ports and the need for urgent improvement of better east-west communications not only for Cambridge but for other parts of East Anglia?

Mr. Carmichael: The northern bypass investigations are going on to determine where the line may be acceptable. This has not been completely pursued in detail, but investigations are going on at the present time.

Sir H. Harrison: Could I, as a Member for East Suffolk, stress to the Minister as my hon. Friend has done again the importance of this road to the export trade from the Midlands through to the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe?

Mr. Carmichael: We are aware of this, and this is part of the reason why it is being considered as a candidate for the preparation pool.

A21 Road, Bromley Common (Footbridge)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations have taken place between her Department and the local authorities concerned regarding the construction of a pedestrian footbridge over the A21 in the vicinity of Turpington Lane, Bromley Common.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): None, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: Will the hon. Gentleman please have consultations with the G.L.C. on this matter? Does he realise that those who live in the vicinity of this very busy route now regard the provision of a footbridge as the only way of stopping further fatal accidents there, and that it would be appreciated if he would use his persuasive powers with the G.L.C. to ensure a speedy and favourable decision on the matter?

Mr. Swingier: The hon. Member will recognise that investigations on this are for the Bromley Council and then for the G.L.C., and they are, I understand, in consultation now about the wider scheme to alter the layout at this junction, taking into account the needs of pedestrians. I can assure the hon. Member that as soon as these proposals are submitted to us, they will be dealt with immediately.

Road Programme

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will now specify the alterations to the road programme necessitated by the reductions in public expenditure in 1968–69 and 1969–70.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport how the cuts in expenditure

on the road programme have affected road communications to the ports.

Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 17th January. As that reply indicated the review of starting dates will be aimed at minimising delays to the more important road schemes, which include those affecting communications to the ports.—[Vol. 756, c. 558.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the hon. Gentleman say what now are the prospects for the M11? Is there likely to be any change?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said, we will so operate the savings that there will be no effect on the major motorway programme and, as far as possible, none on the major trunk route programme. Certainly there will be no effect on an important road scheme for access to the docks.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister of State aware that certain work appears to have stopped on the road to Harwich, which is to be a very important container port? Will he look into it and tell us why?

Mr. Swingler: I am not in possession of the details, but, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have them, I will look into the matter. We have to go through statutory processes, which sometimes cause delay to schemes. If there is any unavoidable delay, I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Ogden: In view of the importance of exports, will my hon. Friend look again at the proposals for the Liverpool-M6 to see whether it is possible to bring that project forward?

Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend will know that we are in consultation with local authorities about important factors concerning access to ports and docks in that part of the country and related to schemes of major construction further ahead. We will do our best to improve matters in that area.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that a recent reply to a Written Question shows that the 81 schemes deferred in 1965 for six months in fact


were deferred on average for more than 12 months? Will this happen again?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. We have debated this matter several times since that occurred. There were many factors affecting the so-called slippage of that period, and, since then, my right hon. Friend has taken action to establish the road construction units in order to overcome these difficulties. Now that we are developing the road construction units, certainly we will not allow that slippage to occur.

Mr. Astor: Has the omission of the M4 in the programme for motorway development announced recently been due to reductions in public expenditure or to some other cause?

Mr. Swingler: It is not due to reductions in expenditure, but to the statutory processes. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there are certain difficulties due to the possibility of public inquiries, which are unavoidable under the present law. We are endeavouring to get forward with the M4 as rapidly as possible.

A19 Road, Shipton (Speed Limit)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Transport whether she consulted the Shipton Parish Council before she authorised the increase of the speed limit to 40 miles per hour through the village of Shipton on the trunk road A19; and whether in the interests of road safety she will now reinstate the speed limit at 30 miles per hour.

Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. It is not customary to consult all local authorities in such cases. The county council was consulted and the proposal was advertised locally on 6th and 7th July last year. No objections were received. The former 30 m.p.h. limit was not a realistic or effective restriction and we would not be justified in reinstating it.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the weekly newspaper selected is one which is not normally read in the village and that this stretch of road contains two very dangerous bends, three road junctions, ten farm entrances, two petrol filling stations, one engineering works, one public house and one school?

Mr. Carmichael: Every effort was made to advertise in the proper local

papers. In this case, the proposal was advertised locally in the Yorkshire Gazette and Herald, which circulates in the area. The police and the county council, the agent authority in the area, both fully agreed with the proposal that the speed limit should be raised to 40 m.p.h.

A63 Road (Elloughton Bypass)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the progress of the Elloughton bypass on the A63.

Mr. Carmichael: An Order establishing the line of the bypass was made in August last year, and a Side Roads Order was published in October. Objections have been received to the latter and are at present under consideration.

Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be a public inquiry? Can he give the House any idea of when the work is likely to start, and also an estimate of its date of completion?

Mr. Carmichael: The question of a public inquiry will depend on whether the objections can be mitigated without the necessity for it. It is hoped that the work will be completed by about the summer of 1971.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one example of the dozen, or perhaps two dozen, bottlenecks and the snags on this awful stretch of road between Hull and the A1? Can he say when he will improve this? In particular, can he tell us something about the beginning of the work on the Thorne bypass?

Mr. Carmichael: I would like notice of the particular case mentioned by my hon. Friend. Work on the connection between the Al and Humberside is going ahead as quickly as possible, but my hon. Friend must realise that a fair amount of time is required between the original decision to build a road, and its being completed. The statutory processes alone take about two and a half years.

A45 Road (Accidents)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Transport how many fatal and serious accidents have occurred on the


A45 between Thurlaston roundabout and the Birmingham boundary since the introduction of a 60 miles per hour speed limit; and how many occurred during the same period last year.

Mr. Carmichael: There have been no fatal and 17 serious accidents between 18th October, 1967, and 31st January, 1968, on the part of the road subject to the limit. There were seven fatal and 19 serious accidents in the same period a year ago.

Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to impose a 60 m.p.h. speed limit on this lethal stretch of road, the first in Britain, has been fully justified despite the lunatic rantings of the motoring organisations?

Mr. Carmichael: It is too early to say. The limit has not been in force for long enough, and, particularly in view of the other measures which have been in operation during the period, it is rather premature to make a decision. The limit will be reviewed when it has been in force for about a year.

Traffic Signs

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Transport what is the total number of traffic signs now in use.

Mr. Carmichael: The regulations prescribe six basic types of sign, including road markings. Within these types there are 270 different signs, but many are simple variants, for instance of direction signs.

Mr. Price: Would my hon. Friend agree that before any new signs are introduced we should have time to get accustomed to those that we have now?

Mr. Carmichael: The evidence is that poeple are becoming much more accustomed to them. The basic understanding should be that circular signs mean instruction, triangular signs mean a warning, and rectangular signs mean information. The signs were designed after consultation, following the Warboys Committee's Report, to bring them into line with the signs used in the rest of Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Coaches (Safety)

Mrs. Renee Short: asked the Minister of Transport what research is being carried out by her research organisations in the design of safer railway coaches.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Research in this field is the responsibility of British Rail. Their current research covers strengths of coach structures and materials, improved braking systems, improved riding at high speeds, and possible fire hazards.

Mrs. Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that the safety of railway coaches appears to compare unfavourably with the safety of the best modern road vehicles? Does he not think that the design of railway coaches should be reconsidered so that there can be a reduction in the size of their scantlings and that far more materials are produced to reduce the energy and impact?

Mr. Morris: There is a programme for the replacement of railway stock under way, but British Rail has a first-class research organisation at Derby. I am not aware that there is any foundation for my hon. Friend's criticisms.

Carriage of Parcels

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Transport if she will give a general direction to British Railways that they should undertake a review of their procedures for the carriage of parcels, with a view to speeding up the service.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. The Railways Board is fully alive to the need to do everything possible to improve its parcels and sundries services and to coordinate them with those of B.R.S. (Parcels) Ltd.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman's answer of "No" will be widely regarded with dismay because the gross inefficiency of this section of British Rail's services frequently hampers the fulfilment of orders within a given period, which is gravely hampering all industries, particularly those concerned with exports.

Mr. Morris: I hope that I can count on the support of the hon. Lady when the Transport Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. British Railways are aware of the difficulties of the present situation and have set up their Freight Sundries Division. There is a joint parcels organisation set up with the T.H.C., and the National Freight Corporation will set up a properly integrated service for this type of freight.

Mr. Brooks: Could my hon." Friend indicate how far the Transport Bill will rationalise the procedure for the carrying of parcels where there are two overlapping public bodies?

Mr. Morris: I do not want to go into details on this, but the National Freight Corporation will provide for an integrated sundries service. Passenger parcels will remain with the British Railways Board.

Southern Region

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Transport when she expects to receive recommendations from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee following its consideration of complaints from Southern Region commuters on the continuing delays and disorganisation within the Region.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport what recommendations have been made to her by the London Area Committee as a result of the complaints they have received from passengers on the Southern Region of British Railways about the unpunctuality of trains since July, 1967.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will refer to the appropriate transport users committee the failure of the Southern Region of British Railways to provide a punctual, regular and reliable service to the public.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I understand that the London Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee has put recommendations to the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which will consider them early next month. It will be for the Central Committee to decide whether to make recommendations to me.

Mr. Hunt: In the meantime, is the right hon. Lady aware that, in spite of some marginal improvement, punctual trains on the Southern Region are still the exception rather than the rule? Does she agree with the Central Consultative Committee that the only long-term solution of this problem is to increase track capacity, and, if so, will she undertake now to give favourable consideration to the estimates for this work which will be submitted to her later this year?

Mrs. Castle: I am aware that the Central Committee, having looked at the position, has said that the Southern Region was right to reorganise the timetables, and improvements have taken place, of which I gave particulars in a recent Press statement. Southern Region is continuing to make what adjustments it can to increase punctuality. With regard to the wider issue, this is, I understand, one of the points which is being considered by the London Area Transport Users' Committee, and I am awaiting the Central Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Fisher: Can the right hon. Lady comment on the point made in the Central Committee's annual report that there really is very little margin and that the unpunctuality, and the inconvenience to our constituents, are likely to continue unless and until the Government approve a fairly major engineering and expansion programme on the Southern Region?

Mrs. Castle: Of course, I shall be glad to study with care any suggestions for improvements and expansion of capacity, but, as the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Central Committee's report, I should remind him that it said that, generally speaking, the Committee felt that the management of Southern Region had been right in dealing with the problem as they had, even recognising the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. The Committee also paid tribute to the great care Southern Region has taken to listen to complaints and to meet hon. Members, and I think we should pay tribute to Mr. McKenna for that.

Mr. Murray: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, in view of the fact that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has recognised that, that it is right that every effort should be made


to encourage Southern Region to improve services rather than condemn the reorganisation?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, I do, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because the Central Committee did say that the handling of the complaints and the difficulties which were encountered following the changes has been commendable. I think we should recognise that a rather bold innovation was made here. It has had teething troubles. I hope we are getting through them. But Southern Region was right to take the initiative.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a study of the increased extent to which private road transport is being used by commuters as a result of the train service provided by the Southern Region of British Railways since July, 1967.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport what was the percentage by which the number of persons commuting by car into central London increased in the six months following the introduction of the new Southern Region timetable in July, 1967.

Mrs. Castle: No special study would be justified. Figures are not yet available of changes in car commuting since July, but rail commuting to Southern Region terminals in central London rose slightly between November, 1966, and November, 1967.

Mr. Fisher: While I acknowledge that the terrible unpunctuality of Southern Region trains has improved a little lately, would the right hon. Lady acknowledge that my constituents have had much to complain about in the last six months and that the service is still irregular and trains frightfully overcrowded, with the result that some people I know are travelling by road?

Mrs. Castle: Not only would I ackknowledge what the hon. Gentleman's constituents have been through, but I think that the Southern Region of British Rail would be the first to acknowledge it frankly. That is why they are making desperate efforts to improve the services. It is, of course, a matter for them, for management. The purpose of the new timetables was to give the hon. Gentle-

man's commuter constituents more space and that we shall still try to do.

Mr. Moyle: While we are all pleased with the improvement in punctuality on Southern Region, would my right hon. Friend realise that car commuting into central London will still grow if the region's policy of withdrawing train services from the inner London suburbs to make room for longer-range commuter traffic continues? Would she look sympathetically at any proposal for increasing the fundamental strength of the system?

Mrs. Castle: I have said earlier that such proposals may be coming to me and I will certainly consider them sympathetically within the limits of the total investment available.

Automatically-Controlled Trains

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport what study she has made of the evidence supplied to her by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire on the contribution to safety on the railways made by using computers for starting, stopping, accelerating and decelerating trains; and if she will initiate experiments with computer-driven trains, possibly on the London Underground.

Mr. John Morris: An initiative by my right hon. Friend is not necessary. London Transport have been operating automatically-controlled trains between Hainault and Woodford for four years and the Victoria line will be fully automatic. British Rail are experimenting with systems suitable to their more complex needs.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement this week of extensions in British developments in this field will be very welcome, but will he, in considering extending and expanding this type of automatic service as quickly as possible, also consider that forms of control as used in Hamburg may be more economical to operate?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the London Transport Board is ahead of the world in this field. The Victoria Line will be the first fully automatic passenger service in the world. The technology of London Transport is more advanced


than that of the Hamburg system. Indeed, it had reached a parallel stage of research and development five years ago.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need, in the case of further developments of this kind, to consult the trade unions, so that they will be adequately informed in advance?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that this is a very important point which the two Boards will bear in mind.

Railway Services (Maintenance)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport what financial ceiling she places on maintaining open socially useful railway lines.

Mr. John Morris: We are not yet in a position to confirm or vary the estimate of £55 million per annum initially which is quoted in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Transport Bill.
As the Joint Steering Group made clear in its Report, it will not be possible to make an accurate estimate of the total amount involved until a considerable number of services have been looked at in great detail.

Mr. Galbraith: Does that mean—I am not quite sure from the hon. Gentleman's reply—that £55 million is the ceiling and, no matter how socially useful the line is, if the £55 million has been used up the line cannot be reprieved? Will the hon. Gentleman clear that up?

Mr. Morris: No. This is an estimate. We cannot at this stage make a more realistic estimate, but Parliament will be invited to approve an estimate for 1969–70.

Mr. Manuel: Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) if he still supports the full rigour and impact of the Beeching Report? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive support that she has throughout the country for the keeping open of socially necessary lines?

Mr. Morris: It is not for me to answer for the hon. Member for Hillhead. We never know where he stands; whether he wants to butcher the railway lines of Scotland or not. What is important is

that in the present Transport Bill my right hon. Friend has set out means of paying for socially necessary railway lines.

Route Mileage

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport whether her decision that the minimum track mileage of British Railways will be 11,000 miles is affected by the recent Government economy measures.

John Morris: These measures do not affect the route mileage of the British Railways Network for Development published in March, 1967.

Mr. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects this figure of 11,000 route miles to be reviewed?

Mr. Morris: This is the figure which we have established as necessary, having regard to the social needs of the country.

Electrification

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport when the major electrification scheme on British Railways, which was postponed as a result of the post-devaluation cuts, will now be carried out.

Mr. John Morris: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) on 20th December last.—[Vol. 756, c. 408.]

Mr. Taylor: Would it not help the railways more to allow them to go ahead with this important scheme, rather than with the expensive nonsense of the Transport Bill?

Mr. Morris: We have made clear to the Railways Board where it stands with regard to this scheme, and I think that in the interests of the nation as a whole, and British Railways in particular, it will welcome the Transport Bill.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the electrification of this line will do a tremendous amount to carry forward to success the Government's regional policies?

Mr. Morris: Yes, obviously this scheme is very important, and, in due time, if the Board makes a fair proposal,


we shall have to examine it against all the other considerations in the development of this part of the world.

Freightliner Traffic

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport how many containers were carried by British Railways freightliners on the most recent week for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in the same week of the previous year.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent freightliner traffic is increasing.

Mr. John Morris: For the weeks ended 11th February, 1968 and 12th February, 1967 the figures were 4,431 and 1,313, respectively. The rate of carryings has, therefore, more than trebeled over the past year.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction—[Interruption.]—I hope, to everybody in the House? Is he aware that anyone interested in British Railways is interested in the success of the freightliner services and that there should be no quarrel between the two sides on this?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that it is of great encouragement to my right hon. Friend to see the success of the freightliner system, despite the attacks and denigration of hon. Members opposite, and it must encourage railwaymen generally to see the fulfilment of my right hon. Friend's assurances that they would all benefit from the system.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the success of the freightliner trains with British Railways, why does the Minister not keep them there instead of giving them to the National Freight Corporation?

Mr. Morris: We are anxious to encourage the maximum development of this important system and think that the best way is by the joint arrangement of a share owned by British Railways and a share by the N.F.C.

Whitland-Tenby-Pembroke Line

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Minister of Transport what recommendations she has received from the Transport

Users' Consultative Committee in regard to the Whitland-Tenby-Pembroke line; and what action she proposes to take.

Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend has received a comprehensive report from the Transport Users Consultative Committee. She is now studying this and will also be consulting the Secretary of State for Wales and other colleagues concerned before taking a decision.

Mr. Evans: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this line is vitally economically necessary to a substantial part of South-West Wales and that its closure would further depress an area which suffers more than most—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Evans: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the closure of this line would further depress an area which suffers more than most from depopulation, from unemployment, and from under-development, evils which the Welsh people associate now with the Socialist Government?

Mr. Morris: I am personally aware of the importance of this line. This is why it is important to study its future very carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, if it is decided to keep the line open, the Transport Bill provides the means for paying for these lines.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Snow

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware of the dislocation on roads caused by the snowfall between 8th to 13th January, 1968; and in view of the possibility of a further snowfall this winter, what consultations are being held to remedy this.

Mr. Carmichael: Heavy snow inevitably causes some dislocation; the most that can be done is to clear the roads as soon as practicable. Highway authorities are generally fully alive to their responsibilities; they were reminded in a circular issued on 5th January of the importance


of keeping their snow clearing organisation at maximum efficiency and no consultations are at present considered necessary.

Mr. Costain: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that early salting could help to solve the problem? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination between the weather forecasting authorities and the county councils? Would he look into the matter to see whether the situation can be improved?

Mr. Carmichael: A circular urged local authorities to do salting as soon as weather forecasts came through. If the salt is put down before the snow falls, the snow can be cleared much more quickly. We are always looking at the question of the meteorological authorities giving as much advance warning as possible. This is being kept up to date.

Motor Insurers Bureau (Unidentified Drivers)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the outcome of her discussions with the Motor Insurers Bureau regarding compensation for victims of hi t-and-run road accidents.

Mr. John Morris: We have now substantially agreed with the Bureau a procedure which will allow for appeals on their decisions in cases involving unidentified drivers. Under this procedure the Bureau will examine such cases as at present but if the victim of an accident is dissatisfied with their decision he will have a right of appeal to an arbitrator from a panel of Queens' counsel. The Bureau will normally pay the arbitrator's fees and will be bound by his decision. We are grateful to the Bureau for their help in developing this procedure which is now being embodied in a formal agreement which we hope to make available to the House, and bring into effect, very shortly.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that his announcement today will be greatly welcomed by all those who have had the misfortune to have to deal with these kinds of claim in the past? Can he say when this procedure will be announced and put into effect? It will be of great interest also

to know what the procedure is for appeals.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind remarks. There are some small points still to be settled. We have reached substantial agreement, and we hope to bring the agreement be-for the House very shortly.

Mr. Weitzman: Having raised this matter on a number of occasions with the Tory Government when they were in power, and having received no satisfaction whatever, may I express my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend for the statement which he has made, and ask whether he is satisfied that the arrangements made will deal with the particularly hard cases which arise?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the House will also want to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend, who has pressed this consistently over a very long period of time, and from time to time has been asking me to report progress to him. We are also grateful to the Motor Insurers' Bureau. I think the arrangements it has set out and which will be set out in some detail will meet the very real needs of the situation.

Driving Licences (Application Forms)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will take steps to implement the recommendations made to her by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention in relation to application forms for driving licences.

Mr. Carmichael: We hope to take advantage of the establishment of a central system of vehicle registration and licensing to revise the application form for a driving licence. The recommendations made by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention will be taken into account during this revision.

Mr. Archer: When this is done, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is asking a lot of any driver to decide for himself when he ought not to be driving, and will he institute periodic health checks of licence holders?

Mr. Carmichael: This is an interesting suggestion, and it is one which has been raised before. But, obviously, before it could be adopted and before such a


departure could be made, a great deal of medical and other advice would need to be taken.

Tyres

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Transport whether she has considered the information acquired by the Royal Automobile Club in its seven-point Tyre Safety Week, details of which have been sent to her; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. This underlines the need for full observance of the new tyre Regulations which will be effective from 1st April. With help from RoSPA and the tyre industry I am arranging further publicity to emphasise their importance for safety.

Mr. Archer: While recognising that the question has been out-distanced by events, is my right hon. Friend aware that these Regulations will be warmly welcomed as a contribution to road safety? Can she tell us in a little more detail what steps she is taking to publicise them?

Mrs. Castle: I agree that this is a very important element in road safety. The Lancashire police have indicated that 30 per cent. of accidents on the M6 in 1967 were due to tyre failure. Therefore, I have thought it right to devote some of the extra funds that we are making available for publicity on road safety matters to a campaign which will start in the Press next month and be followed by television advertising starting in mid-March.

Waterways

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Transport what negotiations are in progress between her Department, the British Waterways Board and local authorities on the future development of the waterways system.

Mr. John Morris: The part that individual local authorities can play must necessarily be related to particular waterways within the Board's system. It is for the Board, as a matter of management, to reach agreement directly with interested local authorities on objectives in their areas. The Board is engaged in numerous discussions of this nature at the present time.

Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure the House that adequate consultation is taking place between local authorities, regional sports councils and the Waterways Board so as to make full use of the tremendous amenities that the Minister has now placed at our disposal?

Mr. Morris: From the information in my possession, there is a very long list of local authorities which are at present negotiating or discussing various matters concerning their own areas with the British Waterways Board. This should be encouraged, and I am satisfied with the present situation.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals she has under consideration for the development of container traffic on the waterways.

Mr. John Morris: The development of container traffic on the nationalised inland waterways is essentially for the Waterways Board to consider, as a matter of commercial judgment, together with the carriers and the customers. I know that the Board is very much alive to the possibilities of container traffic and are actively studying ways in which it can participate further in this modern carrying technique.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous importance of the Humber as a carrying area for the Trent, the Calder, South Yorkshire and so on, and can he give any sort of indication of discussions taking place with the Yorkshire-Humberside area for the development of waterways container traffic?

Mr. Morris: I understand from the Board that a firm of consultants is studying new craft design to meet the requirements of the main river navigations in the region and, in particular, is investigating the possibility of sea-going container carrying craft which would also be capable of navigating the large waterways in the North-East.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the Waterways Board intends to buy such containers, will the Minister urge on it the importance of buying British containers rather than foreign ones, such as those bought by other Boards?

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question has profound implications for the Thames lighterage industry, and would he consider consulting it?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that this would be drawn to the attention of the British Waterways Board.

White Paper on Public Transport Authorities

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of. Transport what consultations she had with local authorities between the publication of the White Paper on Public Transport Authorities and the printing of the Transport Bill.

Mrs. Castle: We had very full consultations with local authorities before the White Paper was published.

Mr. Webster: Is the Minister aware that there was an interval of three days between publication of the White Paper and the appearance of the Bill, and the letters emanating from her office had led local authorities concerned to understand that there was to be adequate consultation between the publication of the White Paper and the appearance of the Bill? As a result, have they not been seriously misled?

Mrs. Castle: No. I cannot accept that, because we promised full consultation with the local authorities, and it is obviously very important that those should have taken place. It was because those consultations were going on right through November and because we wished to incorporate their results in the White Paper that publication of the White Paper came so near to the appearance of the Bill.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Merseyside Steering Committee met to discuss the setting up of a passenger transport authority for the region, the votes on that occasion were almost equal, but that 15 members of a Conservative-controlled council abstained? Is that not an indication that even Conservative-controlled councils in the region are secretly in favour of the proposals?

Mrs. Castle: I think that my hon. Friend's facts are broadly correct,

although I could not testify to every detail. It is true that many Conservative councils view with great enthusiasm the prospect of a big extension in the rôle of local government in this sphere of activity and that, as soon as the party political battle dust has settled, they will join with enthusism in making a success of the P.T.As., just as the G.L.C. will in London.

Mr. Peter Walker: Returning to the main question, is the Minister aware that a letter went from her Ministry to a local authority stating categorically that there would be time for consultations between the publication of the White Paper and the Bill and that this commitment was not kept?

Mrs. Castle: Consultations with the local authorities are still going on. They have gone on since Second Reading. A new round of consultations is about to start. It was important to pay attention to local authority views and get them reflected in the White Paper. It is obvious to anyone who compares the proposals in the White Paper with those in my original memorandum, on which I first went out for consultation, that we have listened to the local authorities and have embodied their views in the White Paper and the Bill.

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

National Freight Corporation (Manpower)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport what is the manpower requirement of the National Freight Corporation; and how many will be transferred from British Railways and how many recruited from other sources.

Mrs. Castle: The manpower of the National Freight Corporation on vesting day, on the best estimate that can be made this far in advance, will be about 66,500, of which about 27,500 will be transferred from British Railways, and the other 39,000 from the Transport Holding Company.

Mr. Webster: What is the Minister doing to make sure, through inter-trade


union discussion, that there is no dislocation of the National Freight Corporation as a result of dissension between the unions?

Mrs. Castle: I have had many discussions with the trade unions on the principles behind my policy. Detailed discussions on the guarantees to their staff and the implications for their staff are commencing.

Mr. Buchanan: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the pension rights and service rights of the transferred staff, together with the travelling facilities enjoyed by the employees of British Railways, will be maintained?

Mrs. Castle: Certainly. We have no intention that the staff shall suffer. But the details of how fast and how far we can move towards common conditions of service, which is an issue involved in this question that my hon. Friend has raised, must be for consultation with the unions.

Channel Tunnel Project

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the need for public economy, she will now cancel the Channel Tunnel project.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does not the Minister realise that this whole concept is out of date? Would it not be much more effective, from the point of view of exports and efficiency, to concentrate on aircraft and hovercraft? When will the Government stop wasting public money and time on these futile projects?

Mr. Morris: Traffic with the Continent, on the best estimates, is expected to grow considerably over the next 30 years—this is generally accepted—and the increased capacity to cater for it must be provided somehow. Economic studies which have taken place show that the tunnel is economically preferable to the alternatives.

Mr. Deedes: If the hon. Gentleman is not going to cancel the project, can he give definite news fairly quickly to those who tremble on the brink of it?

Mr. Morris: The final financial proposals have recently been received from the three banking consortia. They are

now being studied by my right hon. Friend and her counterpart in France. Obviously the decision must be made jointly with her French colleagues, and they must also agree on timing.

Mr. Thin: Can we be told about the progress which has been made in the formulation of financial proposals for the construction of the tunnel?

Mr. Morris: As I have just told the House, the financial proposals have been received and they are now being studied. My right hon. Friend hopes that a group to form the construction company will be selected in the near future.

Mr. Lubbock: Without agreeing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), may I ask whether it would be advisable to wait until at least the end of this year when we shall have more experience of a much bigger hovercraft, the S.R.N.4, on cross-Channel routes?

Mr. Morris: The House will be aware that the hovercraft is an important experiment; but, after all, it is an experiment at this stage. There are substantial indications that there will be a considerable growth of traffic in the years ahead. and this must be catered for on a substantial scale.

Heavy Lorries (Tax)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport on what scientific calculations she bases her proposed wear and tear tax.

Mrs. Castle: Upon the results of research undertaken by my Department and published in the Report on Road Track Costs on 15th February.

Mr. Galbraith: Surely the right hon. Lady cannot be serious in suggesting that this road track cost goes anywhere near justifying her wear and tear tax. Is it not more than ever clear, after reading this, that the tax is an arbitrary Government decision taken to help the railways and that it has no scientific or economic justification behind it?

Mrs. Castle: No. I cannot accept that for a moment. I am not surprised at the attitude of the Opposition in view of the way their recent scientifically


assessed document, giving estimates of the costs of my policy, has been shot down in flames.
The track costs report shows that the ratio between revenues and costs is lower for heavy lorries than for most other vehicles, and that is the basis on which we justify the tax. It has nothing to do with the transfer of traffic from road to rail.

Mr. Mapp: Does not the study show that highway costings, excluding environmental costings, are six times greater for the heavy motor vehicle compared with the private car? In view of those now established facts, why is it that the right hon. Lady is recovering only four-sevenths of the additional costs?

Mrs. Castle: Because we have tempered the winds of economic reality to the shorn lamb of the British road haulage industry.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of her proposal to impose a tax on heavy vehicles, she will take steps to reduce taxation on vehicles which cause minimal wear and tear on the roads.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. All vehicles cause wear and tear to the roads, and the new charge is intended to offset some of the additional costs imposed by heavy goods vehicles.

Mr. Campbell: Since the Ministry's Report on track costs confirms that, by any calculation, road vehicles, including heavy lorries as a group, pay much more in taxation than their track costs, why will the Minister not now make corresponding adjustments instead of making road transport as a whole more costly?

Mr. Morris: Against a background of a continuing and expanding programme of heavy expenditure on road construction and improvement, no reduction in taxation of other vehicles could be justified. The hon. Member will be aware that there is less imposition as regards licensing on smaller vehicles and that this will be very much welcomed by small vehicle owners.

Mr. Ogden: Since my hon. Friend has accepted the principle of wear and tear, would he not consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to reducing

the motor vehicle licence to a minimum fee and transfer that taxation to petrol?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to make that point to the Chancellor who has responsibility for these matters.

Breathalysers

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the results during the first four months of the use by the police of breathalysers.

Mrs. Castle: Deaths and serious injuries in October were 14 per cent. lower than in October, 1966. Deaths in November fell by 20 per cent. and serious injuries by 15 per cent.
The full analysis of the December figures is not yet complete, but we know already that deaths fell by 33 per cent. and serious injuries by 22 per cent.
While it would be wrong to attribute all these reductions to one single cause, I am satisfied that the new law on drinking and driving is the principal reason for these striking improvements.

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say whether those very satisfactory figures have been achieved largely by fewer drivers on the roads in the evenings after closing time or whether they show that drivers are drinking less?

Mrs. Castle: No. When we published the October and November figures we gave our traffic estimates. Traffic increased by 4 per cent. in October and by 2 per cent. in November. In December there was a slight fall of 1 per cent. in traffic. We recognise the point about night traffic, because it is at night that the reductions have been most dramatic. In November we carried out a special analysis on night traffic. We estimate that over the month as a whole car traffic between 10 p.m. and midnight averaged 1 per cent. higher and between midnight and 4 a.m. it was 1 per cent. lower than in November, 1966. The corresponding reductions in casualties for these hours were 49 per cent. and 39 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Bob Brown: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the lives which could be saved in a full year if this improvement were to continue?

Mrs. Castle: When the law was first introduced, I estimated that it might save 200 lives a year. If the November figures are maintained, the saving will be 1,600 lives a year.

Road Transport (Quantity Licences)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Transport what will be the effect of her proposals for the reform of the carriers' licensing system on those parts of the country where British Railways do not provide a freightliner service.

Mr. John Morris: Quality licensing will have the same effect everywhere—to improve and maintain lorry safety standards, whilst freeing operators from outdated and unnecessary quantity restrictions. The new quantity licences will be issued virtually automatically where there is no rail service which can compete with road in overall terms of speed, reliability and cost. Everyone can thus expect a more efficient, flexible and economic service from road transport in future.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will be very helpful and will destroy much of the propaganda of the other side of the House about carrier licensing? Is he further aware that it will reassure those who have been frightened because they were getting propaganda instead of facts?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is vitally important to give the country facts and not fiction about the present Transport Bill.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore give one fact and agree that even in those areas where no railways are operating, it will still be possible for someone not to obtain a quantity licence due to an objection from the National Freight Authority?

Mr. Morris: No.

Coloured Bus Drivers

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport what representations she has received regarding the employment of coloured bus drivers; and what reply she has sent.

Mr. Swingler: In the past 12 months we have received one representation relating to the company sector, which was referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour; and one relating to London Transport, who have assured us that they do not practise discrimination on grounds of colour.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today it was announced that there are more men unemployed in Birmingham than at any time for 20 years?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Pity the hon. Gentleman is not one of them."]—It is because I am employed here that I annoy hon. Members opposite so much with the facts which I produce. Would the hon. Gentleman do his best to encourage our own men to take on this important work?

Mr. Swingler: Citizens of this country are, of course, being encouraged, where necessary, to take jobs in the bus industry and perform an important public service, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in deploring racial discrimination in any industry or service.

Mr. John Fraser: Would my hon. Friend recognise that bus drivers of different colours make a better contribution to public transport than buses of different colours?

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS

Nationalisation

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a further statement on the nationalisation of the ports.

Mr. Swingler: There is no further statement to make yet.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that taking over one undertaking alone would cost more than £100 million? How can he justify this on national grounds alone at the present time? Is he aware that we are beginning to think that the Minister is not considering the national interest, but is playing party politics?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir, I am not aware of any of those things, but, as I have said before, I am aware that, in spite of widespread opposition to the public owner-


ship of the ports, most of the authorities of all kinds whom we have consulted wish to see the establishment of a national authority for the planning of the ports. We are not able to make a statement yet, because we are still consulting those authorities about the shape of the scheme.

Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend say how soon we can expect this statement to be made? Many people in the ports, and hon. Members on this side of the House, are looking forward eagerly to the publication of the date of the nationalisation of the ports. Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision taken by the House last week was particularly welcomed in the Humber area?

Mr. Swingler: I am aware that many people wish to see the shape of the scheme as soon as possible, because they strongly support it. A statement will be made within the next two or three months. I am not able to say exactly when, but we do not want to prolong the uncertainty, and we will specify the nature of the proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman now confirm that the major user organisations, the Confederation of British Industry, and the Chamber of Shipping, have both categorically told the Government that they are strongly opposed to the nationalisation of the ports?

Mr. Swingler: The organisations named by the hon. Gentleman have made plain to us, and in public, that they are opposed in principle to public ownership anywhere. What I have said previously is that, in spite of that, those organisations and others agree with us that a central planning authority for the ports is urgently necessary, and therefore that changes are necessary in the structure of the industry. They agree with that, and we are proceeding on the basis of those views to make a scheme which is as widely acceptable as possible.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear to my hon. Friend that all the workers' organisations representing the workers in the ports are fully behind public ownership? Is it not also clear to my hon. Friend that for a long time we have had backward ports, which need modernising, and that this car only be done under public ownership?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. The trade unions have expressed to us the view that they are fully in favour of proceeding with public ownership.

Mr. Robert Cooke: When can the Port of Bristol, which is municipally owned, expect to receive the Government's blessing for its much needed improvement schemes?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend recently told the planning council that its schemes and proposals are still under consideration, and indeed under discussion with the Port of Bristol Authority. She will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my hon Friend agree to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the Thames lighterage industry to see how this fits in with nationalisation proposals for the Port of London?

Mr. Swingler: As my hon. Friend knows, on his initiative we recently debated this matter in the House. My right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the possibility of an inquiry.

Container Berths and Cargo Handling Techniques

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport what information she possesses about the improvement of productivity and the expansion of trade in those ports where container berths and other modern techniques of handling cargoes have been, or are being, introduced.

Mr. Swingler: The actual increases vary considerably depending on the type and characteristics of the berth. Examples of specific developments of which we are aware show that productivity rates of the order of 10 times those found in conventional berths are being achieved. New or modernised facilities have also attracted substantial increases in trade.

Mr. Lewis: Would my hon. Friend assure us that this expansion will continue?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, it certainly will, since we are now investing more in the ports than ever before.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 8TH MARCH

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. W. E. Garrett.
Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt.

BILL PRESENTED

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to succession to the property of deceased persons in cases of illegitimacy; to confer on illegitimate persons in Scotland the right to ligitim out of their deceased parents' estates; to amend the law of Scotland with respect to the construction of certain provisions made by deed or otherwise; to extend the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964 to tenancies of crofts; to amend the law of evidence in civil proceedings in Scotland; to re-enact, with amendments, the provisions of certain enactments relating to the duration of liferents in Scotland; further to amend the law of Scotland relating to prorogation of the jurisdiction of the sheriff court; to remove a restriction on the extent of land in Scotland which a trade union may purchase or take upon lease and otherwise deal with; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. William Ross; supported by Mr. Norman Buchan, read the First time, to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish Parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; to amend the Government of Ireland Act; and for purposes connected thereto.
I do this at a time when the electorate is increasingly disenchanted with politicians as a race and when some have questioned the value of Parliamentary democracy itself. I suggest that much of this springs from a feeling that people are powerless to influence events. Indeed, power today is increasingly concentrated in Whitehall, which is in turn increasingly remote from argument and control. We need to change the power structure in Britain, and this Bill will attempt to take a first step in that direction.
The Bill has two objectives—first, to involve the maximum number of people in the country in decision-taking—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a background of conversation which makes it very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to be heard.

Mr. Thorpe: I repeat, Sir, that the Bill has two objectives. The first is to involve the maximum number of people in the country in decision-taking, which would go far to restore faith in democracy. The second is to relieve the pressure on Parliament so that we may have more full debates and control over the wider issues.
The policy of my party is long-standing and consistent and I think that the House would be disappointed if I were not in this context to quote Mr. Gladstone, who as long ago as 1879, at the opening of the Midlothian campaign, said this:
I propose that a measure of home rule should be conferred upon different portions of the United Kingdom in order to relieve Parliament of overwhelming business … If arrangements could be made under which Ireland, Scotland, Wales and portions of England could deal with questions of local and special interest to themselves, that would be the attainment of a great national good.
If those words were true then, I suggest that they are even truer now.


Unfortunately, for half a century those efforts were frustrated by the entrenched reactionaries, particularly in another place, who bitterly opposed Irish home rule. In retrospect, we know how ill-advised they were, for the Irish people, denied home rule, resorted to open-rebellion. rejected home rule, and ended with partition and republican status for Eire.
Numerous attempts have been made by Liberal colleagues over the years—most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who two years ago introduced a Measure to provide home rule for Scotland, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who introduced a similar measure designed to do the same for Wales, and by my noble Friend Lord Ogmore in another place a few weeks ago.
In proposing Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, I would ask the Government: why, like their Conservative predecessors, are they afraid to give elected representatives of the Scottish and Welsh nations control over their own home affairs? Do they think that they are incapable? Do they think that they will run amok if they are given this power? Is a nominated Council for Wales, a formula usually reserved for backward colonies, appropriate to the Principality? I would ask, too: since the process of administrative devolution has at least produced what is virtually a Scottish Civil Service, is it not logical to provide a Scottish Parliament to control it?
Time and again in our constitutional history we have belatedly conceded in bitterness what could and should have been granted in logic. The demand for Parliaments in Scotland and Wales is cleat, logical and unassailable.
Turning to Northern Ireland, I accept that the only existing precedent is not entirely a happy one, but this is not a criticism of devolution as such, but of the tensions that remain in Northern Ireland. But just as we must aspire to maintain the same living standards throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, so, in practice, there must be the same guarantees of human rights, wherever the citizen may live. When one considers the rejection of a Parliamentary Commissioner in Ulster, the exist-

ence of the Special Powers Act, and plural voting in local government elections in Ireland, it is clear that this cannot be said of Northern Ireland today. My Bill would seek to effect the necessary Amendments.
If the House concedes that there is a strong case for Parliaments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, it is logical to ask: what provision should be made in England? It is true that much of England—I am thinking of regions such as the North-East and, indeed, my own area, the South-West—feel as remote from London as do Scotland and Wales. If Wales and Scotland are to have their own Parliaments, it follows that there will remain issues of exclusively English significance. There is clearly a need for a wide measure of devolution. The regions of England are not in the same way the homes of nations, and it is not therefore surprising that there has not yet been great pressure for an English Parliament. Certainly, to take the two Commonwealth examples of Australia and Canada, provincial Legislatures are not unknown.
My Bill suggests that a Commission should examine the purely English problem and that in the meantime English problems should be dealt with in this House by English Members sitting alone, possibly as a Committee of the whole House.
In short, I propose that a Federal Parliament would continue to deal with matters such as Foreign Affairs and Defence for the United Kingdom as a whole, and that Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would have sole control over their own domestic affairs, that the Government of Northern Ireland Act should be amended to provide adequate safeguards for religious, political and cultural minorities, and that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom would continue to sit in a Federal Parliament whose total membership could probably be halved.
I believe that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit greatly from the unity of the Kingdom. We are able to help each other and to make distinctive contributions in the political, social and cultural and economic life of the United Kingdom. No one should lightly disregard these advantages. At the same time I


am convinced that to promote distinctive national life, to involve people in their own future, to restore vigour to our democratic system, devolution is a matter for urgent action.
In conclusion, I ask of the House that we should not repeat the mistakes of Ireland. We should, as a mature democracy, recognise that our system of government and our Parliamentary institutions are capable of improvement. I invite the House to accept this Bill as presenting an opportunity to do the right thing at the right time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thorpe, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, and Mr. David Steel.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Bill to establish Parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; to amend the Government of Ireland Act; and for purposes connected thereto, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the welfare of livestock and to make provision for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any increase in the payments out of such moneys which is attribuatble to provisions of the said Act providing for the extension of the functions of agricultural wages committees established in pursuance of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949;
(2) any expenditure incurred by any Minister or government department (other that the Postmaster General) in making payments to assist in the reorganisation of the affairs of a tenant of an agricultural holding in cases where the Minister or department acquire the tenant's interest in, or take possession of, the holding or part of it in exercise of compulsory powers;
(3) any exenditure incurred by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in making to a river authority grants in respect of works executed by the authority in pursuance of section 35 of the Land Drainage Act 1961.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have had posted a list of the Amendments which I have selected for consideration today. With new Clause No. 1, we are to consider the following two Amendments: Amendment No. 42, in Clause 51, page 40, line 14, leave out ' and 45 ' and insert:
'44, 45 and (Further functions of agricultural wages committees)'
Amendment No. 44, Title, in line 16, after 1926 ' insert:
' the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 '.

New Clause No. 1.

(FURTHER FUNCTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES)

(1) The Minister may by regulations—

(a) provide that the functions under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 of agricultural wages committees established in pursuance of that Act shall include such further functions as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling or requiring those committees to give effect to orders made or which may be made by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales under that Act and (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions in this paragraph) to determine whether any person is a member of any special class of workers as defined in such an order;
(b) make provision with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the exercise of the further functions aforesaid and provide that section 15 of that Act (which relates to evidence of resolutions and orders) shall apply with such modifications as the Minister considers appropriate to decisions made in the exercise of those functions.

(2) In this section "functions" means powers and duties.

(3) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales there shall be substituted 7espectively a reference to the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.—[Mr. Peart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause would extend the powers and duties of agricultural wages committees. This is necessary because the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales has just reached agreement in principle on proposals for a statutory wages structure under which, in addition to a basic minimum wage as at present, higher minimum rates of pay would be prescribed for workers possessing particular skills or occupying positions of special responsibility.
It is proposed that the qualifications required for the premium grades should be laid down in the Board's orders, together with a provision that, in certain marginal cases, a worker's entitlement to a particular grade would be decided by the agricultural wages committee for the county in which he is employed.
This would, however, necessitate a small amendment to the Agricultural Wages Act, as at the moment committees have no power to take on additional duties of this kind. The Board accordingly asked for suitable provision to be made in the present Bill to enable me to confer upon the wages committees such additional powers and duties as may be necessary. The request, I am pleased to say, is supported by the farmers' and workers' unions.
As regards the Clause itself, it will be seen that we propose to apply it to Scotland, which has its own Wages Board and district committees set up under the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act, 1949. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend who is to reply to deal with that. There is one other point. As the House knows, the Boards are autonomous bodies; they make their own orders fixing minimum rates of wages and so forth, and Ministers have no power to intervene in the exercise of their functions. Their position under this Clause is unchanged. The Clause enables the rather limited functions of the wages committees to be extended by the Minister but it does not in any way detract from the powers and duties of the Boards. New functions given to the committees by the Minister will have no practical effect unless they


are brought into play by an appropriately worded order of the Board itself.
I cannot say when the proposals for a wages structure will be worked out, and it may be a considerable time before they are implemented by order of the Board. It could, however, be longer still before there is another opportunity for amending the Act, as the Board has requested, and this is why we have decided to insert a Clause in this Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Clause, though, perhaps, it might have helped us more if the Clause had appeared in the Bill originally. However, we understand that there may be reasons why it has been possible only recently to bring it forward. We on this side welcome at least the intention behind the Clause. It is a step forward in a process which has been evolved over a considerable time. Over the years, there has been a lot of thought and, sometimes, a certain amount of controversy regarding a wages structure for the industry, but I believe that it is a logical step forward, and for that reason we welcome this proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will deal with the provision regarding Scotland, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. This is, we believe, one of the rare occasions when, perhaps, Scotland is a little ahead of England and Wales. We readily acknowledge that.
As regards the generality of matters raised by the Clause, the Minister will agree that its introduction at this time has a certain appositeness. The whole question of training and education in agriculture has come very much to the fore, as he knows. The right hon. Gentleman has not been so closely concerned, perhaps, because these matters have come under the Ministry of Labour, but he will know very well that, to put it no more strongly, there has been considerable perturbation about the Agricultural Training Board.
There is something of a duality here. The Agricultural Wages Board is dealing with a wages structure, and the whole question of training must be involved in it. Other industries have wages coun-

cils, as they are mostly called, and these come under the Ministry of Labour. Agriculture has its own arrangements which come under its own Minister. Nevertheless, the point has been made on previous occasions in the House that there may well be a case for the Agricultural Training Board to come under the Minister of Agriculture. I am not suggesting that it would be possible to do this under the present new Clause, but there is that close relationship.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter cannot be discussed on this Clause.

Mr. Godber: May I submit the point to you, Mr. Speaker? We are dealing here with the question of a wages structure, and the Agricultural Wages Board must be concerned with the training which enables people to fit into a particular part of the structure. I do not wish to develop the point, but I submit that it would be wrong for us to deal with the present question completely in isolation, when there is a clear link between what is provided under the training scheme and the categories to be provided for under the Clause. I put it to the Minister that, at some stage, the Government of the day ought to look at the relationship here just as they do in relation to other industries, bringing the two sides of the business under the umbrella of one Minister. There is reason to consider whether things may not go at cross-purposes under the set-up which we now have. I take the matter no further now.
The development of a general wages structure within the industry will help to provide what we all want to see in the long run, namely, a proper recognition of skill in the industry and proper rewards for the skill which is undoubtedly there. This is what we all wish to achieve. If the new Clause will help to that end, we on this side give it a warm welcome.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply, to clarify one or two points? I think that I was probably right to assume that the Clause would have slightly more relevance to England and Wales than to Scotland, but a phrase in line 8 has caught my eye. It is:
…any person who is a member of any special class of worker…


I do not know if that is the kernel of the proposal. My understanding is that in England and Wales there is no classification of workers under the Wages Acts for wage awards, although it exists in Scotland. I do not have a wage schedule with me, but my recollection is that male workers are grouped as ordinary farm workers—or what are called in Scotland orramen, of whom there are very few nowadays—grieves, tractormen and shepherds, each of whom has a minimum wage rate, probably varying between each wage district.
If that is so, and if power is being given for England and Wales to come into line with us, could the hon. Gentleman tell us what application the Clause will have to Scotland? There is a reference in subsection (3) to its application in Scotland, and it would seem that that was not put in for no purpose. What will be the effect on the agricultural wages system in Scotland?

Mr. Bert Hazell: As a member of the Agricultural Wages Board for over 20 years, I welcome the Clause. As my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, the Board has for a very long time had some form of wages structure for agriculture under consideration. The matter has not been easy. I have taken part in discussions on the Board for more than 20 years, off and on, but it is only within the past 18 months or so that it has really got down to detailed consideration of how a wages structure could work for an industry so involved as British agriculture. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that the Board has not yet finalised its plans or arrived at details of a wages structure. But it is confidently expected that by the end of this year a detailed plan will be submitted. Then it will be a question of how to operate the plan.
When making its unanimous decision to ask my right hon. Friend to introduce a Clause on the lines of that which we are considering, the Board had in mind that undoubtedly about 90 per cent. of the workers employed in agriculture will automatically fall into the scheme of a wages structure, but that there will be 10 or 12 per cent. about whom there will be problems of whether they have the necessary skill and knowledge to be

classified for the plus rate that the various scales will permit. It is unanimously suggested that the better people to sort out the problems of that minority are the members of the local wages committees, who have local knowledge of the men and employers concerned. But the Board understood that at present it does not have the power to delegate that responsibility to the committees, and that is why it sought the support of the Minister and the introduction of the Clause.
In its early stages, the operation of a wages structure will create some difficulties, but in view of the importance of attracting men on to the land and of men recognising that the industry has a career and opportunities to offer, it is essential that something more than the basic minimum wages should be legally operative, and that there should be fair recognition of skill and responsibility in the pay packet. That is the practical way in which recognition of skills and responsibilities is appreciated by workers.
It is well known that many good farmers unofficially pay premiums, bonuses, plus rates or some other form of additional payments above the basic minimum rates. But the Board long ago came to the conclusion that it was unfair that good employers should recognise their responsibilities in that way when perhaps some others did not recognise their obligations to reward the skill of their workers financially. That is what impelled the Board to get down to practical details of working out a wage structure. The Clause will enable the local wages committees to iron out difficulties between employers and employed in the minority of cases that are not capable of automatically being fitted into a wages structure.
Therefore, on behalf of the Board and my own union, I welcome the Clause and the reception it has received from both sides of the House.

Sir Frank Pearson: I welcome the new Clause and entirely agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) that it is very important.
We sometimes fail to realise how agriculture may well find itself extremely short of skilled men, especially skilled stockmen, in the years ahead. In the


big arable farms of East Anglia and Yorkshire, where there are fairly regular hours and where, during a great part of the year, not very much may be happening on the farm, it may be easy to get men. But my mind dwells much more on the stock-raising areas, where conditions are often not as good or comfortable as they are in the East, and where, particularly when one is handling stock, the men invariably work seven days a week and not five days a week. I know men who have had to milk cattle twice a day, day in and day out, all through the week, for years on end. The Clause will allow us to categorise the skills of agricultural labour and to fit in a wages structure suitable to those skills. It is only by doing that, and doing it generously, particularly for skilled stockmen, that we shall obtain the men that the industry must attract.
What amazes me beyond all measure is that such an important matter as this should have been introduced into the Bill practically at the tail end of our proceedings. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. It has happened throughout the Bill, and the only conclusion I can draw is that when the Minister worked out what he wished to include in the Bill he did his job in a somewhat cavalier manner. One or two Clauses which we shall debate later today should never have been introduced at a late stage. I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of why an important matter like this is introduced at the tail end of our proceedings. What conditions have suddenly arisen to justify this? What conditions are coming today that were not coming last November?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must surely have heard what I said at the beginning. I had to take action at this stage because of the recent decision of the Board.

Sir Frank Pearson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining it. But I cannot help feeling that, the whole question of skills and wages having been under consideration for a very long time, the right hon. Gentleman should have been aware that this matter was coming up. However, I am grateful for and accept his explanation and I welcome the Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I understand that the provisions of the Bill as it affects the Scottish agricultural workers will be more fully explained by my right hon. Friend in replying to this debate. Because wages in Scotland are being linked with those in England, I understand that the Bill will help raise the standard of life at least a little for the Scottish agricultural workers, and I am grateful for that.
I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) attacked my right hon. Friend for being rather late in this respect. When did we get any Measure of this kind from the Conservative Government? It is entirely new to me that hon. Members opposite are concerned about the wages of agricultural labourers. When it comes to rents for landlords, they are always enthusiastic. Now they have decided at this late stage, after having enjoyed political power for so long, to accuse the present Government of being late.
I rejoice in this new Clause and hope that it will result in raising the standard of living of agricultural workers throughout the country.

Mr. Peter Mills: I, too, welcome the Clause, but I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Some of us have been interested in wages for a long time and practise what we preach.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is interesting.

Mr. Mills: I have always believed in a wage structure and have always put it into operation on my farm. Many farmers do it because they want to reward their men for the skills they have—and they are genuine skills. The other side of the coin is that, if one did not introduce a wage structure, one would not get workers. I welcome the new Clause. It is right that, in 1968, men should be paid for the undoubted skill they have.
However, I must criticise the Minister in that we should have had far more time to discuss it. There are many points one would like to go into—for example, whether the N.F.U. and the National Union of Agricultural Workers have been


fully consulted. There is also the problem of the small farmer with one man. This will create problems which must be overcome and we should have had a chance to discuss them.
How do we define skills? How do we put a man into a category when he may be a cowman in the morning and a tractor driver during the day? How does one define the skilled worker? The Clause gives hope of a proper farm ladder for the farm worker which he can move up as he gains these various skills and can enjoy the very high standard of living which is true of the top people in the dairy industry at the moment. My cow man earns over £22 a week. He is a skilled man and is enjoying the advantages of that skill. That is only right and proper. Of course other men should have these advantages as well and that is why I welcome the new Clause.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I also welcome the Clause. It is important to keeping men on the land. I agree that it is a pity that we could not have had this provision before us in Standing Committee, when we could have had a good discussion of it. I think that the Minister feels that himself and he should have brought it forward in Committee.
I also disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) about his aspersions upon East Anglian farmers and farm workers. It is not only stockmen who have to work long hours. People lifting sugar beet and loading it—

Sir Frank Pearson: I apologise to my hon. Friend. It was never my intention to cast any aspersion on East Anglian agricultural workers. I merely wished to point out that the conditions in the wetter, colder grass areas of the west side of the country entail very long hours which will never be found, possibly, on the arable farms on the East side of the country.

Mr. Hawkins: I invite my hon. Friend to come to Norfolk in November to lift sugar beet. He will see how the wind can blow.
I must also cross swords with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I raised the matter of agricul-

tural wages 15 years ago. I have been fighting for higher wages for agricultural workers all that time. I mentioned them in my maiden speech and initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What success did the hon. Gentleman have in those 15 years?

Mr. Hawkins: As much, apparently, as the hon. Gentleman. It is a great concern to anyone interested in agriculture that agricultural workers earn £5 a week less and work five hours a week longer on average than manual workers in industry. So I welcome anything which will give the agricultural worker a status and enable him to qualify for better skills. I welcome the Clause, late though it is.

Mr. John Farr: I, too, welcome the Clause, but perhaps with more caution than some of my hon. Friends. In the Midlands we have had to provide an adequate wage structure for our farm employees for years. Industrial employment in the Midlands is at a very high level, with the unemployment rate at about or just under 1 per cent. per annum on average. The result has been tremendous competition for skilled and sensible agricultural labour, and unless one pays one's men not what the Wages Board lays down but considerably more, and one's skilled stock men considerably more still, one has not a chance in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire or Nottinghamshire of keeping men on the land.
In the Midlands, therefore, in some respects we are ahead of the Board, and I welcome the Clause. But my welcome is somewhat cautious in so far as I can see considerable difficulty in laying down exactly what the remuneration should be or, for example, a stockman. He has many ancillary duties. Will the rate be based on the number of animals in his charge? This will have to be worked out with great care so that the industry does not get too bogged down in red tape and difficulty.
I give a cautious welcome to the Clause. I was not lucky enough to be a member of the Standing Committee, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has acted a little unfairly in bringing this before the House at such a late stage.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I cannot help feeling that the traditional party's enthusiasm for agricultural wages is of fairly modern date. For generation after generation the agricultural wage was kept at the very bottom. The county road man got two bob a week more and the groom got two bob a week more. I can remember my father telling me about the trouble which he had with the neighbourhood when he paid £1 a week instead of 18s., which was what his neighbours were paying. He was told that it was letting the side down. Perhaps that is going back a bit, but, none the less, there is no doubt that that was the attitude for generations.
It resulted in a highly inefficient agriculture. The lower the wages, the more inefficient an industry is, right through that industry. The most inefficient industries of all are the slave employing industries. Slavery went less because of enlightened ideas than because it proved hopelessly inefficient as a means of production. The great improvement which we have seen since the war—and it is since the war that the great rise in agricultural wages has occurred—has been caused more than anything by high agricultural wages, for as wages went up, labour had to be used more efficiently. Farmers could not afford to use labour unintelligently when they had to pay so much for it.
Agriculture has increased its efficiency far more than has any other industry in the country. Agriculture is ahead of the towns, ahead of the factories. It is far more efficient than any of its European competitors, a factor which always comes into my mind when I hear discussions about the Common Market. It is all founded on the fact that we pay the highest wages.
However, I am by no means certain that this proposal will work in the rather special terms of agricultural employment. Demand for skilled men now exceeds supply and a good man can command a very high wage, far higher than any wages board can give him. I doubt whether at this stage the skilled man needs this protection and I wonder whether, instead of being a minimum wage, the rate laid down by the Board will be treated as a maximum wage. This wants watching. It is for the Board to consider this—we are not settling anything—but I

doubt whether at this stage regulating wages will be to the benefit of the men or the industry.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It is an honour to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I agree with much of what he had to say at the end of his speech. I will not comment on his history of agricultural wages other than to say that much of what he said was true.
I, too, wonder whether the new Clause is a good idea. I wonder whether the time has not come to do away with the Agricultural Wages Board. I begin to wonder whether it is necessary in the context of today. The hon. and learned Member was right to argue that the advance in agricultural wages was largely due to the shortage of skilled men, who are now in a very strong position. The whole purpose of wages councils has been to protect men who were in a weak position, to bolster their wages, but those conditions no longer exist. Can the right hon. Gentleman justify not only the Clause, but the retention of the Board in conditions in which it is no longer fundamentally necessary?
I agree with those who have stressed the importance of a new structure of wages and of a ladder so that men can work their way up and receive higher rates of remuneration as their skills increase, but I do not believe that the use of the Wages Board is the best way in which to achieve that aim. I do not believe that we should extend its powers in this context. We have moved away from the days in the 1930s, and even the 1940s and 1950s, when the Board was necessary. In the late 1960s and 1970s it may be an encumbrance and even a hindrance and make us liable to forget that its wages level may be regarded as the maximum. Most farmers now pay well above the rates laid down by the Board and surely the time has come for the right hon. Gentleman to question whether this structure is necessary and whether amending legislation might not be needed to abolish it.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Minister has admitted that this is not only an enabling Clause, but, in a sense, a paving Clause, because he expects, before there is any future opportunity for agricultural legislation, to


agree a general scheme as a basis for regulations. From what we have already heard, there seems to be material for a fairly general debate on the whole problem. The disadvantage of taking the Clause this afternoon is that we do not have a background against which to debate it. Our next opportunity to hear of any developments in this important project may be only when regulations have been published.
I therefore hope that the Minister will assure us that, as and when a general scheme with agreed principles comes into being, we shall be able to discuss the wages implications in advance of any regulations. It should be possible to arrange for such a short debate and I should be much happier about accepting this admittedly important Clause if we could have some such assurance.

Mr. Hazell: As the Agricultural Wages Board is now constituted, it is unneccesary for regulations to be issued for a variation in basic rates, and the rates to be applied under the new structure to particular branches of the industry will be basic rates. The whole Board, farmers' and workers' representatives, is fully alive to the difficulties which have been mentioned. All that the new Clause does in effect is to empower the wages committees to sort out difficulties as between men and employers, and the Board itself will determine any argument about where a man fits into the scheme.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has reinforced my case, which is that the Clause will not give us the automatic right to discuss the principles of a wages structure. That is important because, as my right hon. Friend has said, there must be co-ordination of the bodies deciding what categories of skill can be used in an agricultural wages structure, and those bodies are nowhere near providing for agricultural training and education.
I apprehend that the easiest way of running the classification system would be on a basis of certification. It is only when there is no certification, that that kind of appeal to the Wages Board of which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) spoke will arise. I hope that the Minister will give us some undertaking about a debate. He will get his legislation, but we need to debate

the principles and the subject matter covered by this new Clause.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I join with most of my hon. Friends in welcoming this new Clause, for one particular reason. If we can get a wages structure operating within the industry it will materially help to keep more men on the land. I am very worried about this drift from the land, which has been talked of all through my life as a farmer, but which has become much more serious lately, when the effects of mechanisation are being felt and when there is a real shortage of labour on farms.
If we can get a wages structure and can formalise the existing informal structure it will provide a great boost for training. Some of my hon. Friends are rather dubious about training and have some rude things to say about the Agricultural Training Board. I share most of those feelings but one cannot get away from the necessity to have a greater degree of training among our farm workers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss training on this new Clause.

Mr. Jopling: This structure works well informally. It will be desperately hard to organise. If we are to have such a structure it must take place with the Minister's assistance. We can only have a healthy wage structure in industry if the prosperity of agriculture is much higher than it is now. I know that I will be out of order in going any further, but this is an absolutely vital matter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to ask four brief questions on the new Clause, which I welcome. First, why has the Minister brought it in now? There was a long, massive Agriculture Act and it seems that that would have been the appropriate moment for it. There has been a very long Committee stage, which I did not have the pleasure to attend, but I would have thought that it could have been brought in then.
Secondly, can the Minister explain how this wages structure will work? No one will want to be at the bottom of it. There will be two essential features, categories and differentials. It is extremely difficult to define categories among farm workers. Farm work is an


all-round occupation. Often, on my own small farm, I find that on the same day I am called upon to work as a carpenter, a bricklayer, a stockman, a book-keeper, a general labourer, geneticist and stenographer. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of how he is to do it.
Thirdly, if the Board is to do it, what criteria will the Minister give to the Board as to how it should establish differentials between one branch of farm work and another? During the debate the suggestion seems to have crept in that this new Clause could mean an increase in farm workers' pay. I can see nothing suggesting that. When the Minister replies I hope he will say that the enormous new skill and investment that is now to be seen on the land will reap its commensurate reward. If a new wages structure does not succeed in improving the take-home pay of the farm worker it will not be worth the paper it is written on.
I must comment on the extraordinary speech made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who is not in the Chamber now. In my constituency of West Suffolk we have been seeking higher real pay for the farm worker for a very long time. It is disgraceful that an unemployed person in the Midlands car industry can still get more pay for not working than the farm worker gets for putting in five or six days, in all weathers, at all skills. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there is nothing in Government policy that will prevent this new wages structure improving the real income of the farmworker.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): We have had a good debate, covering a good deal of ground. I regret that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is out of the Chamber, because I know that he would have been delighted to have had so many allies in his plea for higher wages. There is nothing in this Bill relating to wages, as hon. Members will know.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked about the effect of this new Clause in Scotland. He was referring back to the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act, 1949. In subsection (5) of the Third Schedule the question of a special class of worker is written in. The position is that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board has not so far advanced proposals for a wages structure of the kind that has now been agreed in principle in England and Wales. It has adopted a rudimentary wages structure prescribing minimum wages for general workers and higher minimum wages for various classes of general workers, such as shepherds, stockmen and so on. There has been no difficulty in doing this; it is a function for the Board, not for a direction from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The reason I ask the hon. Member to say that there was nothing in Government policy that would affect such things is that, as he knows, there is a prices and incomes policy and the need to prove productivity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may know, but he cannot talk about it now.

Mr. Buchan: I did not know it, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that the question was out of order.
More than one speaker has asked why this new Clause should be brought in now. The answer is perfectly simple. It is only now that the Board for England and Wales has reached agreement in principle on these proposals for a statutory wages structure. It is agreed that we should bring this in as quickly as possible. The proposal meets with general agreement in the industry, both farmers and workers supporting it, and agreeing that it should be brought in at the earliest possible moment. We have consulted the Scottish employers and workers organisations who support the proposal that this opportunity should be taken to make possible the extension of these functions to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2.

(REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK.)

4.30 p m.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 25, after ' food ', insert implant or injection '.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 46, in line 26, after food ', insert implant or injection '.

Mr. Davidson: I apologise to the Minister for the lateness with which the Amendment was submitted, but I was trying to ascertain whether the point in question had been raised in Committee. I understand that it was not. The Clause gives powers to Ministers to introduce regulations to prevent suffering to animals due to either constricted accommodation, improper diet or mutilation of any sort. An outstanding omission from the powers which the Clause gives to Ministers appears to be that of prohibiting or regulating the introduction into an animal by means of implantation or injection of substances which might cause suffering or have other side effects. The Amendment seeks to remedy that omission.
In addition, I had in mind the human aspect of the problem. As the Minister well knows, substances are used by implantation for capernising fowls for later consumption. Substances such as hexaestrol are implanted behind the ears of. fattening livestock to make them grow faster and fatter, and various preparations are introduced by means of injection—iron injections in pigs, for example—to which additives could be added. A whole variety of vitamin and antibiotic preparations is used for injection into various livestock.
I do not say that those substances are necessarily dangerous or cause suffering to the animal, but while the opportunity exists it should be taken of giving the Ministers additional powers to prohibit or regulate the use of certain substances, if necessary, if it is considered that they might cause suffering to livestock or have undesirable side effects on human beings who later consume the carcases or products of the livestock which have had implantations or injections.
If it is not out of order to say so, the whole thalidomide incident and the results from it should be a warning to the nation of what can happen if substances are used in any way without having been properly tested by research and other means. I do not believe that people yet fully understand the possible side effects or outcome of these growth elements which are implanted into livestock to make the meat more tender or to make them grow more rapidly.
I urge the Government to use this opportunity not only to take extra powers to protect animals against possible suffering due to injection or implantation of undesirable substances, but also to ensure control in safeguarding the rights of the public. The Minister will be well aware that there are many among the public who are extremely worried about the type of substance which is now used to aid the farmer—and being a farmer myself, I should, perhaps, declare an interest—in getting his fatstock more quickly to market.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Being a farmer, I suppose that I should declare my interest in this subject. The House will appreciate that the generality of regulation-making powers which we seek in subsection (1) would enable us to deal with the welfare implications, if any. I ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) to realise that there is no proof that any welfare issue is attached to implanting or injecting. I have been trying to think particularly of injections which could involve a welfare consideration other than the welfare of the animal in a veterinary sense. It would be difficult to argue that implanting was in any way cruel to the animal.
The hon. Member mentioned that we had particularised three points in the Clause. This part of the Bill arose out of the Brambell Report and we have particularised the three points which that Report particularly put forward. If any welfare consideration is attached to implanting or injections, it can be dealt with by the generality of the power to make regulations. We will, of course, keep an eye on all practices which are adopted in the rearing and keeping of farm animals and we shall deal with welfare aspects as they arise. That is


why we have sought the wide powers under the Clause as a whole.
The hon. Member made a point of the human aspect. This really has nothing to do with animal welfare. In any event, it is dealt with under the Food and Drugs Act and that position is not altered under the new Medicines Bill which is now in course of passage through the House. For these reasons, the Amendments would be entirely unnecessary additions to the Bill and I must ask the House to reject them.

Mr. Godber: I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) in moving the Amendment. We in the Conservative Party have viewed the Clause in a rather different light. Our view was that the Government were taking unduly wide and general powers. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that in Committee we had a considerable debate on this aspect. We said that the Clause went too wide and covered too great a generality of matters and gave the Minister powers which we did not feel had been justified.
In resisting the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman rests his case on that generality of powers which the Clause contains. He is almost putting it forward as a virtue of the Bill. It is extraordinary how Ministers can become, as it were, corrupted by their own power in this way and in seeking these enormously wide powers.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, "Don't worry, old boy. If it does not come by the use of your words, subsection (1) is so wide in phrasing that we can get in practically anything we want." It is deplorable that such legislation should be brought forward. That was why we were critical of the Clause in Committee. We believe that it is too widely drawn.
I would not be opposed to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, because he seeks, in a sense, to make the Clause more specific. The whole Clause needs redrafting, however, to make it narrower and in such a form that Ministers do not have the wide, sweeping powers in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary so clearly revels.
Therefore, while I am in no sense hostile to the Amendment, I regret to say that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is right in saying that he has these wide powers. I do not think that he should have them, and we resisted them in Committee. Having dealt with the matter at some length upstairs, however, Mr. Speaker, I know that you would not wish me to follow it further here. I merely wanted to make clear our position in regard to the Amendment.

Mr. James Davidson: I listened with interest to the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I appreciate that sweeping powers are taken in the Clause, but at this stage in the progress of a Bill there is no opportunity to undo any damage which may have been done by the Government in seeking to take wide and sweeping powers.
My point, which I hope I got across, is that if the Government are taking those wide and sweeping powers, they have made an omission in them in that there is nothing which I can read into the Clause to cover the possible suffering which might be caused to livestock by injection or implantation. I realise that the Brambell Report is behind this part of the Bill, but surely that does not preclude the introduction of other principles into the Bill. By my Amendment, I seek to work in a little bit of consumer protection and perhaps, in the broadest sense, I am treating human beings as livestock, but I should have thought that that was permissible under the Bill. If the Minister insists that that is so—and I should like him to answer this point—I will naturally bow to his judgment and accept his assurance that his point can be dealt with in regulations. I seek to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffithsrose—

Mr. George Willis: On a point of order. I understood that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) was withdrawing his Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman was speaking for a second time which, I understand, is out of order on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): On Report, an hon. Member who moves an Amendment has a right to reply. I understood the hon. Member


for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) to say that if the Minister gave a certain assurance he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. That is why I looked to the Minister to see wheter he will give that assurance. As the Minister did not rise, and as the Amendment has not been formally withdrawn, I called the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he will define a "balanced diet". Apparently he will consult such persons appearing to represent the interests concerned. Is he proposing to lay down precisely what kind of balanced diet my constituents should have in their piggeries and livestock units at any stage of the breeding or fattening cycle? If he is, I suggest, as many of my hon. Friends did in Committee, that he is taking far too much power. The farmer is likely to know a good deal more about this matter than the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will say precisely how he will define a "balanced diet" and whether he proposes to go into enormous detail in the regulations which emanate from his Ministry.

Mr. John Mackie: With permission, I should like to give the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) the assurance that his point is covered under the clause and in the Food and Drugs Act. The point about a balanced diet has absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment. However, if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) cares to join me in a cup of coffee, I will tell him how to balance a diet.

Mr. Peter Mills: I can understand what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) is trying to achieve. He is trying to protect the consumer. But there is another side to this matter, and this is why I am not happy about the Amendment.
It is important that we should be allowed to use all the modern methods in agriculture. As I said many times in Committee, the consumer cannot have it both ways. If people want good food at a reasonable price, the farmers must be allowed to use the most modern methods, which include implants and injections.
To give a practical example, suppose that pigs are suffering because they are doing badly. An injection of iron, or aureomycin in their feed, can alter the whole picture. The difference in the health and growth of the pigs after they have had these injections is remarkable. They no longer suffer, and a healthy carcase for the consumer results. If people want food at a reasonable price, farmers must be allowed to use the most modern methods.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): I should like to ask the Minister whether he would have power—and I presume that this would be one of the powers which would be given if the Amendment were accepted—to stop the injection of something into a calf which created anaemia. Anaemia has been deliberately created by means of an unbalanced diet to make veal white. I have seen these animals in Holland. As the Minister probably knows, the President of the British Veterinary Association and I wrote a paper on this matter.
If as a result of the Brambell Report the Minister is given power to ensure a balanced diet and that an injection can be substituted for the iron which is provided by a balanced diet, it will destroy any action which the Minister may take and create the very conditions which I am sure he and all of us who have any care for animals are anxious to avoid.

Mr. John Mackie: Before the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, I made it clear that we have the very wide powers which he would like us to have but which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) would not like us to have.

Mr. James Davidson: I believe that the remarks of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) were irrelevant to the Amendment. If he cares to visit my farm in West Aberdeenshire, he will find that we employ not only modern but humane methods of husbandry.
In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 45, at end insert:
(3) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
I should like to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 39, in page 39, line 23, after 23(1)(b) ', insert:
' and regulations under section 2 '.
Amendment No. 1 fulfils an undertaking which we gave in Committee. It means that Ministers will have to secure an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament before any regulations made under Clause 2 can take effect. Amendment No. 39 is purely consequential. I am sure that the Amendments will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for the Amendment. We welcome it. We said from the start that we felt that there was a need for affirmative Resolutions to be passed. We are glad that the Government have accepted our view. The Amendment will give the opportunity of putting the sweeping powers of the Clause before the House for affirmative Resolution.
Without wishing to be churlish, may I, as a student of Parliamentary procedure, ask a simple question? In Committee, we put forward an Amendment the wording of which was very similar to the wording of this Amendment. It proposed that
No regulations made under this section shall come into force until they have been approved by … each House of Parliament.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in indicating that he had some sympathy with our proposal, said:
… I assure him "—
that is, me—
that, on Report, we will seek to insert words to cover the point, but in a better way".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th November, 1967; c. 63.]
I should like to know in what sense the words of the Government's Amendment are better than the words we proposed. It would be nice if that could be explained to us.

Mr. Peart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not being churlish, but I would chide him by saying that I thought we had conceded a major point to him,

and in view of that I hope we can meet it by being allowed this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.

(EXTENSION OF CLASSES OF OPERATIONS IN WHICH ANAESTHETICS MUST BE USED.)

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 40, after represent ' to insert ' producers of livestock and '.
In Committee, when the Government considered this matter and undertook to reconsider it, I made the point that by Clause 5 the Ministers are obliged to consult the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We felt that in a matter of this kind the producers of livestock should be consulted as well. To that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) in effect said this: "We do not want to waste words. We are bound to consult the producers under the heading of interests concerned ' and if we were to start to specify any particular group of people we should have to string along a whole host of others." This, of course, is an argument which was not advanced for the first time. Indeed, I can well recall using it myself on one occasion—I do not know with as much conviction as I would have liked. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has already been specified in the Clause, and, therefore, I would say of the hon. Gentleman's argument that that particular pass has already been sold.
There is, I would have thought, no question as to the relative importance of the livestock producers. I am not going to say whether there are other people who are important and who might have to come in as well. The hon. Gentleman did not specify who they were. I would certainly say that in this matter the producers are what one may describe as primi inter pares with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Mr. John Mackie: Primi?

Mr. Stodart: They are in the plural, not the singular. I think that if the hon. Gentleman reflects he will see that I am meticulously accurate in this matter.
The National Farmers' Unions have expressed their approval of this Amendment. I do not say that that should weight heavily with the hon. Gentleman, but I would have thought it a reasonable request, and I hope he has reconsidered it and will give us a favourable reply.

Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that we had a long argument about this in Committee, when he made all the points he has made today, including the point that we have particularly mentioned the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This, as I think he may agree, is in a slightly different category, for this is a question of animal welfare. By the words "other interests concerned" the National Farmers Union is included. If there is any body capable of putting forward views for consideration it would be that one. I think those words cover the point which the hon. Gentleman makes about the N.F.U. I do not think he brought forward any new arguments today to alter the position. I said that we would look at it. Our lawyers give us the advice that the Amendment is unnecessary. We do not want to clutter up the Bill with unnecessary phrases. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all interests are adequately covered. I hope that, with that assurance, he will be content, as I thought he was in Committee.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am still not satisfied by what the Minister has said. I do not think we are cluttering up the Bill at all by just including three or four words. That seems a very stupid answer to me. These words should be inserted, and I support my hon. Friend very much in seeking to have them inserted. These very important producers should be consulted. That is not to say that the N.F.U. will not do its job properly, but it should be made quite clear, and clear to all future Ministers of Agriculture, that the producers of livestock should be consulted.
I want to reiterate again the reason why I think this Amendment should be made. Farmers are doing many of the operations which are necessary on their farms. This is right and proper. As farmers become more and more skilled, so it is right and proper that they should do these things. Perhaps the agricultural training board can help in this so that

farm workers as well may be able to do more of this sort of work. Indeed, with ever rising costs upon farmers it is important that farmers should do as much of their work themselves as they can. I would be very upset if they were to be restricted in this type of work. Therefore, it is vitally important that they should be consulted at every point.
The Minister may say we are making a lot of fuss about a very small point. He nods his head. If he will think about this carefully he will realise that we are not, and I hope that he will allow us to have this Amendment.

Sir Frank Pearson: I think it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept this Amendment because by doing so he would maintain a real balance within the Clause. The people who will be really affected by the operation of the Clause will be the livestock producers themselves. Of course, he is absolutely right in saying that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may well, at the final point, he the experts in any of these cases when they come up. They will be the experts, but all too often in agricultural practice the practical farmer finds that he has certain cause, sometimes at any rate, to be not wholly convinced by what the experts tell him. All too often he gets one expert telling him one thing and another expert telling him another thing.
Therefore I would have liked to have seen this Amendment accepted, if only for the one reason that it would make it quite clear in the drafting of the Bill that we recognise the producer of livestock as an important person and that his processes of production do mean something to us, that we realise his difficulties, and give him a special place in this Clause about consultation. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the N.F.U. will be consulted, but there are so many other bodies, poultry societies, breed societies, a hundred and one different societies and interests which might well be consulted. If he can give an assurance that the general terminology of national farmers unions includes other special interests which will also be taken into account, that will be helpful. Nevertheless, I would like to have it in the Bill, and I think it is a pity that the Minister has not been able to accept this


specific Amendment and give the producer a very special place in this Clause.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The entire House will sympathise with the view of hon. Members who have spoken that the producers of livestock should be consulted in a matter of this kind, but provision is made in general terms for this. It is a matter of drafting. I should have thought it would have been quite abundantly clear now, as it must have been to those who read the speech of the hon. Member in Committee, that it would be highly undesirable to single out for special mention any single category of persons to be consulted. On a matter of statutory construction, I can match the hon. Member's primi inter pares with another tag, a canon of construction, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. By specifying one category, it might be open to Ministers to come to the conclusion that it was not incumbent upon them to consult any other category of person who might be very importantly connected.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to support the Amendment in plain East Anglian English. I cannot think of a worse reason for rejecting any Amendment than the one that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave, namely, that he had consulted his lawyers. He said that his lawyers had told him that it was unnecessary. But does he not realise that most troubles with legislation arise because lawyers are consulted? What is important here is not what lawyers have told him but what those who will be empowered to enforce this Measure will do.
In the Clause as it is now drafted, it is clear that the Minister has made a distinction between that minority which is to be consulted by Statute, namely, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the rest, who will only be consulted at the Minister's discretion. I am sure that any Minister of Agriculture would never dream of bringing in regulations without consulting the National Farmers' Union, but there are other bodies representing livestock producers who might not be consulted, and I think that the Minister should take the point that, among those to be consulted by statutory

right, there should be those who produce the livestock. If they did not produce, the need for the Clause would not arise and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would not have a job to do. I ask the Minister to think again and recognise that he ought not to distinguish between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who will be consulted by right, and the livestock producers, who may be consulted if he so decides.

Mr. Stodart: We have had a very disappointing reply and a most unfair one. The hon. Gentleman said that I had given no new reason for the inclusion of the Amendment. However, he did not ask me to. In the light of the arguments advanced upstairs, he agreed to think again, but he did not ask for any new reasons.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he had consulted lawyers, my mind went back to an occasion upstairs when he was forced to admit that the one category of people about whose advice he was dubious was his lawyers, and he said some extremely dusty things about them.
Will he tell us who are the others he may have to string along? This is an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. In such a Bill, mention must surely be made of agriculturists. They are among the people who are worthy of mention under the covers of that Bill.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not show himself to be completely solidified on this issue.

Mr. John Mackie: If I may, I will deal first with the argument about what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has called "stringing along". He made the point that this was an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and, therefore, should concentrate on agriculturists. I would remind him that some of his predecessors, with Mr. Christopher Soames at their head, were under tremendous pressure and, as a result, appointed the Brambell Committee. This Measure results from that Committee's Report. There are interests outside agriculture who have had quite a say in it, and I would point out


to him that, if we included one agricultural interest, the pressures to include other responsible categories would be just as great. We do not want to differentiate in any way. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is in a different category, but there would be no case for not stringing along a lot of other interests if we accepted the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Clithero (Sir Frank Pearson) made the point that there were a number of other bodies interested in livestock production which might not be included in the N.F.U. However, I can think of no facet of animal production which has anything to do with this Clause and which is not included in the N.F.U. For example any other type of breeding which is not agricultural has nothing to do with the Clause, and I am certain that, if the hon. Gentleman went to the N.F.U., that body would give him the same assurance.
I do not think that we should go too much into our belief or otherwise in lawyers. I think that they are a necessary evil. Although I may have made the facetious remark attributed to me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, we have to pay some attention to them. They have given us certain advice on this matter and, accordingly, I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, because I at least have been persuaded by them that the Amendment is unnecessary.

Sir Frank Pearson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he said that he could not think of any sphere of livestock production which was not covered by the operations of the N.F.U. However, let us take the case of someone who breeds dogs, which might come under the Clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on Report.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6.

(POWERS OF ENTRY, ETC.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move

Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 4, leave out ' Any constable and any ' and insert ' A '.
It might be for the convenience of the House to take with it Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
The main purpose is to change the rôle of the police under Part I and make an additional provision relating to the production by an authorised person of his authority to enter upon land. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) will remember that I promised to look at this point again.
We have been reviewing the role of the police under Part I, and we propose to confine the power of entry for the purpose of checking whether the statutory provisions are being observed to persons authorised by Ministers or local authorities. Accordingly, Amendment No. 4 deletes the reference to the police from Clause 6(1).
It was argued in Committee that an authorised person might already have entered the premises before meeting anyone wishing to see his authority. We accepted that point and, accordingly, have tabled Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to provide that an authorised person should, when requested, produce his authority when on the land, instead of only before entering it. The specific point made in Committee is met by the second of these two Amendments. The first one makes it clear that the subsection applies to persons authorised to enter upon land for the purposes set out in the two preceding subsections, and it makes a necessary drafting change to allow the subsection to be divided into two paragraphs, (a) and (b).
Finally, I come to the question of support for authorised persons when carrying out their inspection responsibilities under Clause 6. With the removal of inspection and sampling responsibilities from the police, the specific power of entry previously given to them would disappear. Thus, to enable authorised persons to call on police support on the rare occasion that it is thought desirable, it is necessary to make provision for such persons to be accompanied on the land. Amendment No. 8 would achieve this and allow the police to enter upon the land when accompanying the


authorised person. I believe that a strictly limited rôle of this kind is justified.
Amendment No. 9 makes a simple change in Clause 6(4) confining the power to take samples of feedingstuffs to authorised Ministry or local authority officers. It completes the changes in Clause 6 as a whole as the result of the proposal to remove inspection and sampling powers from the police.
I hope that the House will agree that these are desirable Amendments. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen who suggested them. I hope that I have met their point of view.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Though not a member of the Committee, may I express my gratitude for the way in which the Minister has taken the points made in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and others.
The Amendment will be much welcomed by the police, with whom, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a connection. With the tabling of the Amendments yesterday, I have already received from those representing the police a letter thanking those who have assisted in this fashion and also expressing their satisfaction with the action that the Minister has taken.

Mr. Godber: I add my thanks to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). These Amendments, taken together, fully meet the points which we made upstairs.
We felt that a mistake had been made in the drafting of Clause 6 and we advanced our reasons. This series of Amendments meets in detail the specific points we made. For this reason, they are warmly welcomed. We think this is a sensible way in which to make provision. We have always recognised that there may be a case for the police to have to assist possibly, but this would appear to be covered fully by Amendment No. 8. This seems to be the right and proper way in which to deal with it so that authorised persons, as laid down in the Clause, will be the only ones responsible for taking the samples that are envisaged. While the police will give any help that is necessary, this

makes the position what we think it should be, and we are glad that the Government have made these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 12, leave out "but only for ascertaining".
Perhaps we might take this Amendment and No. 10 together.
In Committee right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to emphasise that the authorised local authority officer's power of entry in Clause 6 (2) should be exercised solely in connection with feedingstuffs and dietary matters and not with any other aspect of livestock welfare. They accordingly pressed for the insertion of the words "but only for ascertaining", which now appear in line 12. This was accepted.
Although we have heard that these additional words were not necessary, we appreciated the argument made about them. I have since been advised that amending the subsection in this way creates a contrast between it and the preceding subsection which also deals with the powers of entry. The House will agree that a distinction of this kind between two subsections is one we should try to avoid. We have, therefore, considered what might be done to resolve what is, after all, a technical difficulty. We have concluded that the reasonable solution would be to amend Clause 7 (3) so that the powers there conferred on local authorities in England and Wales should be confined to proceedings for such an offence as is mentioned in Clause 6 (2)
If Clause 7 (3) were amended in this way, we should achieve the required emhasis on limitations of local authorities' responsibilities under Part I of the Bill. Without affecting this emphasis, the additional words inserted in Clause 6 (2) in Committee can be removed and thus avoid the present unwanted contrast.
We have, accordingly, Tabled Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 5 removes the words added to Clause 6 (2) in Committee. Amendment No. 10 amends Clause 7 (3) so that prosecutions by local authorities in England and Wales are limited to offences relating to feedingstuffs and animal diets which are referred to in
Clause 6 (2). This makes it clear that neither local authorities nor their authorised officers would be concerned with animal welfare matters other than feedingstuffs and diets. The situation in Scotland is not affected, as prosecutions there would be instituted by the Procurator Fiscal and not by the local authorities.

5.15 p.m.

I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to the House. I assure the House that there is nothing sinister in them. They are designed solely to meet the Opposition's view expressed in Committee in relation to Clause 6 (2) while avoiding the technical difficulty to which I have referred.

Mr. Stodart: I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. The effect here is achieved in the different way that he suggests.
One point has occurred to me which I would like to put to him. The person authorised by the local authority is permitted to take such other persons as he thinks are necessary. Would those other persons be subject to the same limitation as lie local authority inspector? That is not entirely clear. It would defeat the whole object if one of the persons that the local authority inspector decided to take was not bound by the same limitation.

Mr. Hoy: I can clear that up right away. He would not have any greater power than the person who has been authorised.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 6: In page 4, line 17, after section ', insert:
'to enter upon any land—(a)'.

Amendment No. 7: In line 18, leave out from ' entering ' to end of line 19 and insert:
' and while present on the land '.

Amendment No. 8: In line 19, at end insert:
'; and (b) may take with him on to the land such other persons as he considers necessary '.

Amendment No. 9: In line 20, leave out from ' person ' to may ' in line 21 and insert ' authorised as aforesaid '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 7.

(PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES UNDER PART I.)

Amendment made: Amendment No. 10: In page 5, line 30, after ' offence ', insert:
' as is mentioned in section 6(2) of this Act which is '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 9.

(ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO TENANTS QUITTING AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 32, leave out ' resettlement of the tenant ' and insert:
' reorganisation of the tenant's affairs '.
We are introducing this Amendment to allay certain fears expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stoddart) during debates in Committee. It might, he suggested, be arguable whether a sum described as being to assist in the resettlement of a tenant would be payable to a tenant who was dispossessed of only a part of his holding, since such a tenant would not have to resettle himself physically in the sense of picking up his goods and chattels and taking them somewhere else. It is not the Government's intention to render such tenants ineligible for the payments for which the Clause provides. In view of that, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the Amendment puts the eligibility of tenants beyond doubt.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor): The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the Second Reading debate we discussed the original phrase in the Clause. The discussion was about whether any payments made by a landlord to a tenant in compensation for notice to quit because the farm was required by a local authority for building or other development purposes would be deduct-able against any possible Capital Gains Tax or development levy. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary of State for Scotland knew the answer then, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) raised the same point in Committee, and on 12th December the right hon. Gentleman said:
He "—


that is, my right hon. Friend—
has asked me whether, when the landlord sells and pays the additional sum to his tenant, he can offset this against any gain on the transaction before Capital Gains Tax is charged. The answer is ' Yes '."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 12th December, 1967; c. 214.]
Later on, however, the right hon. Gentleman was less clear about whether this would apply to any development charge. He said that these were complicted matters, and that he would let my right hon. Friend know the answer later, subject to confirmation by the Treasury. As far as I am aware, this matter is still outstanding.
If the assurance in respect of Capital Gains Tax about a landlord's compensation payments was clear in the old phrase of the Bill—
a sum to assist in the resettlement of the tenant "—
I imagine that it is equally watertight in respect of the Amendment, which describes it as a sum to assist in the
reorganisation of the tenant's affairs.
I imagine that there is no technical difficulty about that, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this is so.
The other point was that raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is following this.

Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not being discourteous. I was making certain that I had a copy of the letter which I wrote to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: This is a slightly technical point. My hon. Friend asked whether, if a landlord gave a tenant notice to quit on a 50-acre farm, of which 30 acres were required by a local authority for building, and the notice to quit had to be in respect of the whole holding because the 20 acres remaining would not be viable, and, therefore, the landlord would have to pay the tenant four years' rent compensation for the whole of the 50 acres, that compensatory sum could be offset against any sum which the landlord might receive by way of the purchase price of the

30 acres before attracting either Capital Gains Tax or any possible development charge.
Let us assume that a 50-acre farm is rented at £10 an acre. This means an annual rent of £500. On the basis of four years' rent compensation, the landlord would have to pay the tenant £2,000 in respect of the whole holding. Would the total compensation be offset against any liability for Capital Gains Tax if it arose, or for any development charge if it arose, in respect of whatever price he received for the 30 acres being compulsorily acquired by the local authority?
Those are technical points, but they ought to be made clear. I do not wish to cast the slightest doubt on the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, but I think that it would be helpful, in case these situations arise, if, now that the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to insert a new phrase describing the resettlement of the tenant, made this clear.

Mr. Godber: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has raised this point. I think the Minister will agree that it is a difficult and intricate one. Both on Second Reading and in Committee we discussed the phrase relating to the resettlement of a tenant. The Minister explained the reason for it was to assist in clarification for taxation purposes.
Subsequent to the discussion in Committee upstairs, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) played an important part, the Minister has introduced this new phrase. I think that it clarifies the tenant's position, and we are all grateful for this. We all wish to achieve the same objective with regard to the taxation position of payments which will be made under this Clause. It would be nonsense if the benefits were taken away in a way which was never intended by the Government.
We are satisfied about the position of a tenant, but the position of a landlord is somewhat different. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 17th January, and I think that my hon. Friend has seen a copy of that letter. I do not think that it entirely disposes of the point made by my hon. Friend, but it is clear from the Minister's letter that this is a difficult matter to dispose of. We had


hoped that it might have proved possible for the Government either to have spelled out the position more clearly in relation to the wording of the Clause, or to have given an assurance from the Despatch Box about the way in which the matter would affect landlords.
If the Minister can say something further on this aspect of the matter, I think that it might help to clear the air. If he cannot do so fully now, perhaps in another place a precise form of words can be included to make the position clear. I think the Minister will appreciate that, in justice to the landlords, as well as to the tenants, this is a matter which requires clarification.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for what he has said. I appreciate his concern, and that of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). As I said earlier, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I was being discourteous when he was addressing me. I was looking at the letter which I wrote to his right hon. Friend and another letter which I wrote on 23rd January to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). In my letter to the hon. Gentleman I said:
In Standing Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill you asked whether a landlord who gave his tenant notice to quit a 50-acre holding in order to sell 30 acres for development would be able, for Capital Gains Tax purposes, to offset the whole payment he had made to the tenant under Clause 9 of the Bill against the sale proceeds for the 30 acres.
I am advised by the Inland Revenue that he would not. The Clause 9 payment, like the original cost of the land, would be apportioned in proportion to the current use value of the land sold and the land retained.
This is a difficult matter, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to ask whether the new payments will be liable to Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax, or betterment levy.

5.30 p.m.

Tenants will not be liable for Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax or betterment levy on sums received under Clauses 9 and 12. These sums do not constitute a capital gain or, in the Land Commission's view, a realisation of development value, nor do they constitute a part of the tenant's taxable income. The Financial Secretary replied on this point

to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) on 21st February, 1967.

The following is the position on the landlord's liability. Hon. Members moved an Amendment in Committee with the proper objective of clarifying the landlord's tax liabilities in regard to payments under Clause 9, and there was a full debate, reported in the Committee HANSARD in Cols. 211–16. If a landlord sells his land with vacant possession, after paying the appropriate sum under Clause 9 to the tenant, he can offset the payment against his gains for Capital Gains Tax purposes. I said this in the debate, in Col. 214, and add that, in practice, the incidence of Capital Gains Tax on land sales is not yet great, because the starting date for the reckoning price is 1965 and the tax hits only the enhancement of the land's value for its existing use.

On betterment levy I understand that the Land Commission take the view that when a landlord pays the new sum to an outgoing tenant, he will not be able to add it to the base value of his interest for betterment levy purposes when he sells the land for development. Questions of liability for betterment levy are the responsibility of the Land Commission and a Bill like this cannot legislate away existing liabilities. However, a landlord is not obliged to sell with vacant possession, although he will no doubt do so when—as will generally be the case when he sells for development—he thereby gains enough on the sale price to leave him well in pocket after paying the new sum to the tenant and discharging his tax liabilities.

This is a complicated matter, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he wants. If more precision is necessary here or in any other related part of the Bill, I will certainly ensure that it is remedied elsewhere. I note what has been said, and will have close consultations. I have tried to clarify the subject and I trust that what I have said will be helpful.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that I have understood the Minister's explanation. He seems to be saying that, if a landlord gets Y thousand pounds for the sale of an agricultural holding but has, rightly, to pay Z thousand pounds to the tenant who is dispossessed of part of the


holding, he cannot set off one against the other for a development levy.

Mr. Peart: The landlord is in the clear on Capital Gains Tax. He could offset the payment under Clause 9 against the gains. For betterment levy, however, he will not be able to add the sum to the base value of his interest. That is the advice which I have, but I will try to get more precision if it is needed.

Frank Pearson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 23rd January about a small holding of which only a part is taken for development. If he is to consider capital gains, would he consider this again also? I entirely understand the logic of the ruling by the Income Tax authorities, but as a matter of policy, it may lead us into difficulties. I can imagine a situation in which part of a small park was to be used for development and the landlord did not serve notice to quit on the tenant with a farmhouse and 20 remaining acres but left him there, possibly without enough land to earn a living, until the tenant said that he must go, which would mean that the tenant would not get his compensatory payment.
Would it not encourage the right hon. Gentleman's policy of the merger of small units if, in this case, he allowed a certain concession, so that, when a landlord serves a notice to quit on a tenant who has been left with the stub end of a holding and has to compensate him, the compensatory payment for the whole unit is allowed against the sale price of the land for Capital Gains Tax purposes? This would follow the Minister's policy. If we do not do this, we may encourage the retention of small units.

Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The difficulty is that I cannot alter tax law in the Bill, although I will take note of what has been said.

Mr. Godber: We obviously cannot pursue this complicated matter now. What the right hon. Gentleman said has not reassured me but seems to have gone back in some sense on what I understood was his position in his letter to me. I hope that he will have further consultations before the Bill goes to another place and that some statement can be made there which will not only clarify

the matter but reassure landlords. I fear that they will be worried otherwise.

Mr. Peart: I said that I will do this and I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. James Davidson: On a point of order. May I speak to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no such Question on Report stage.

Clause 10.

(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 9 IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)

Mr. Godber: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 30, at end insert:
(d) the tenancy in question was the subject of a written agreement entered into less than five years before the termination of the tenancy and containing notice that the holding or the part of the holding as the case may be would be required by the landlord within that period for development purposes, and the development is commenced within the period of six months following the termination of the tenancy.
We frequently said in Committee that Clause 10 is one of the most complicated in the Bill. We are not seeking to complicate it further, but to clarify it with the addition of this subsection, which will follow and relate to the initial words of the Clause,
Subject to the provisions of this section, no sum shall be payable in pursuance of section 9 of this Act in a case where—".
I hope it is clear that, although we have always accepted that the compensation under Clause 9 is right and fair. nevertheless one category is not covered, in which automatic payment is not right. Under Clause 9 compensation, a tenant will expect to receive this additional sum for a disturbance, but, in the type of case for which the Amendment would provide, where a written agreement had been entered into less than five years before the termination of the tenancy and containing notice that the holding or part of the holding would be required by the landlord within that period, the development would have to commence within six months after that termination. We make it clear that we are restricting the


provision to a fixed term tenancy for a period of five years or less. This is the type of tenancy for which we believe that it would not be reasonable to make the provisions of Clause 9 apply.
It is common justice that this should be done, because the tenant enters into this arrangement for this period of time knowing that it is a short-term arrangement. He therefore cannot later claim that he is being put to unreasonable expense or difficulty because of the termination of the tenancy. This is a special problem which arises in various cases where land is required for development purposes and where the land cannot be immediately developed.
It could be argued that the Government's policies in other spheres will lead to the delay of certain development which would otherwise take place. The present economic difficulties, the present high Bank Rate—there are plenty of reasons why development should be delayed. It is nonsense that land should fall out of agricultural use in the interim period. The Amendment seeks to deal with such eases. Otherwise a landlord who lets land for a period of less than five years will at the end of that period, if Clause 9 applies, have to pay at least five years' compensation and will, therefore, receive nothing for the use of the land. He could well be out of pocket if he has let it for two or three years and has had to pay five years' compensation. This is nonsense in view of the conditions into which leases are entered into for these short periods. The tenant will not have suffered unreasonably, because he knew the conditions when he entered into them. Yet he will get an advantage under the Bill as it stands and the landlord will be penalised.
I cannot believe that this is the Government's intention. If this happens, land will be allowed to go derelict in those two or three years. This would be wrong. It would be wrong from the point of view of the nation, because this land should be productive. It would be wrong from the point of view of neighbours, because the land will produce weeds and vermin. From an agricultural and a general economic point of view it makes nonsense. Therefore, some provision such as that contained in the Amendment must be incorporated.
If the wording of the Amendment is not wholly in line with the Government's desires, we would naturally bow to their view, but before parting with this matter we should want a firm assurance that the Government would introduce in the other place something which would have the same effect, otherwise we should have to record our view that this is something which should be provided for. I hope that the Government will see the justice of this case and will make some provision.
To be fair to the Government, another way in which this could be dealt with is by short-term lettings under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holding Act, 1948. Such holdings are subject to Ministry approval. If there is to be no provision in the Clause. Section 2, which is useful in certain cases, will have to be used to a much greater extent and the Ministry's officers will be called on to approve a much greater number of cases.
We often talk in the House about the need to avoid the proliferation of civil servants. In a recent debate we were assured that the number of civil servants would not increase. If the Bill is passed in its present form, and if the only way in which the land can be used is by the utilisation of Section 2 of the 1948 Act, this will mean an additional amount of the time of officials being spent considering and approving short-term lettings over a period of time. If it were for a five-year period, it would have to come up for reanproval at least four or five times by officials and, presumably, by Ministers.
I therefore hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not, in rejecting the Amendment, call in aid the provisions of Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I do not think that that would be the correct way to deal with it. A clear case arises here, because the Clause has created the situation that a landlord letting for a short period knows that in the event of his dispossessing the tenant he has this greater sum of compensation to pay.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to face up to this fact and not merely to rely on Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a case to be met and that it should be met in the Clause. If he does not like the wording of the Amendment, that is fine, so


long as he can give us a clear assurance that the point will be met.
If the hon. Gentleman rests his case on Section 2, he must state much more clearly than has been stated so far what his Department's attitude would be in future to applications for Section 2 consents where development is expected in less than five years. I do not press that point, because I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will meet me in another sense. If he does not, we must have a specific assurance that Section 2 consents will be more readily granted to take care in some way of these requirements.
My main concern is either that the Amendment be accepted or that something very similar is written into the Bill, otherwise I fear that waste will occur and inefficiency will be unnecessarily created.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall rest my case on Section 2, although we appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman has made. We agree with the spirit of the Amendment, in that something needs to be done here, because it would be grossly unfair to a landlord who might collect three years' rent and have to pay anything up to six years in compensation for resettlement—for "reorganisation", as it will now be as a result of the last Amendment.
The circumstances are adequately covered by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. When I studied that Act, I had to go backwards and forwards through four Sections to get the point clear. Nevertheless, it is clearly there. Such licences or lettings require the Minister's consent. Applications can expect to receive favourable consideration where there is a reasonable expectation of development within the reasonably near future. Short-term lettings may not be given for periods of longer than 364 days. They can, however, be renewed if necessary, and this "if necessary" is an important point. The prospects of development may change or recede, although perhaps not for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he is adept at making political points. It is right that they should be re-examined at suitable intervals. Licences may be for longer periods.

—This covers the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the proliferation of civil servants.—For the same reason, consent would not usually be forthcoming for a period extending over many years.
The Amendment would not give the tenant adequate safeguard against changes in development schedules or priorities. If the development did not turn up within the stipulated five years, the landlord could press his tenant to make another five-year agreement and even another one after that. The whole purpose of the Bill could be undermined in that way.
It is a basic principle of the Agricultural Holdings Act that there can be no contracting out of its provisions, and the same principle is given clear expression in Clause 10(4) of the present Bill.
There can be little doubt that, if agreements such as the Amendment envisages were to be permitted at all, they would soon become standard provisions in every tenancy agreement, and a tenant's chance of becoming eligible for the new sum would be slender indeed. For this reason, we think that the Amendment is not only unnecessary but might be dangerous.
I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman with that explanation and that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment, in the light of the assurance which I have given. We see the point, but we consider that Section 2 of the 1948 Act covers it adequately. Licences can be given for a period much longer than one year. This would meet the right hon. Gentleman's other point about a proliferation of civil servants or extra work for existing staff.

Mr. Jopling: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that Section 2 of the 1948 Act provides for these arrangements to be made for periods longer than 364 days. Is he then saying that, if such an application came to his Ministry, the Minister would grant a controlled tenancy of that kind for up to five years? I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that clearly, and we want to know.
The other point which the hon. Gentleman made was very arguable. He said that, if the Amendment were accepted, tenancies could go on and on, five years after five years. This is met by the


concluding words of the Amendment. There is a proviso that development should be commenced within six months following the termination of the tenancy. If the development were commenced, no question of another five-year period could arise. I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument at all.

Mr. Godber: I am greatly disappointed by the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He disappoints me fairly regularly, but this time more than ever. It was an appalling reply. He has rested his case on Section 2 of the 1948 Act, but that gives us very little encouragement. The only argument which the hon. Gentleman adduced against this clear Amendment is that he thinks that it could be abused by people seeking an additional five years. The Government's Parliamentary draftsmen are perfectly capable of so wording an Amendment as to meet that point. Instead of the words,
following the termination of the tenancy 
the words could be,
following the termination of an initial tenancy".
There are lots of ways in which it could be done. The lawyers of whom the Parliamentary Secretary is so fond in other connections could help him out if he is willing and anxious to deal with the problem.
The truth is that, knowing that Section 2 of the 1948 Act existed, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his officials really directed their minds to this point. The trouble is that we are now confronted with the narrow provision in the 1948 Act, produced for entirely different purposes but now to be foisted on to the requirements of this Bill, requirements which were known by the Government by reason of the additional burden which they are putting on landlords. We have never quibbled at that—we think it right—but we consider that it is the Government's corresponding duty to make provision for the type of case which I have put.
As I listened to my own argument earlier, I flattered myself that I must have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary because it was so clear and so logical that it could not be resisted. I am amazed at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. We are not seeking to lay down an unreasonable impost. We seek merely

to clarify the legislation and to put it in such a form that both landlord and tenant are safeguarded and land which is required for agriculture for a short time shall not be sterilised or fall into disuse. Yet I fear that that is precisely what will happen. There will be pockets of derelict land in the countryside. Perhaps the total fall in agricultural production will not be enormous—I do not want to overstate the case—but there will be pockets of land on which weeds will grow and infect other land and on which vermin can breed. This is entirely against what the Parliamentary Secretary himself would wish, being a good farmer. In order to safeguard the hon. Gentleman from the consequences of his own Bill unamended, we shall express our view in the Division Lobby against him if he cannot give us a better answer.

Mr. John Mackie: I said that I saw the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I agree that something is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman must not say that we did not look at this matter. We looked at it very carefully, but we decided that it was covered by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to add legislation if the point can be covered already.
I have given an assurance. I appreciate the point, but, in being fair to the landlord, we must be fair also to the tenant. In our view, the Amendment would erode the security of tenure of a tenant, or could do so. Licences for periods longer than a year do not create tenancies, and each period of five years would be a new tenancy. The position would not be safeguarded by putting at the end of the Amendment such words as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. They would not be adequate.
However, I give the assurance that we shall look at the matter again. If we feel that it requires something extra we can put an Amendment down in another place. In the meantime, I reiterate our view that the Amendment is unnecessary and could be dangerous, and the matter is covered already by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. To show that we looked at the question carefully and did not skate over the Amendment, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the whole picture by citing the references: it starts at Section 2, it goes back to Section 1, from


there it goes to Section 94, and then back to Section 34.
On my assurance that we shall look at it again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[5.58 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Baker, W. H. K.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Banner


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Holland, Philip
Robson Brown, Sir William


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharpies, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Button)
Silvester, Frederick


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stodart, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Tapsell, Peter


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfielcl, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langxtone)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, W. H.
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper



Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Anthony Royle.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Blackburn, F.
Concannon, J. D.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Conlan, Bernard


Alldritt, Walter
Boardman, H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Boston, Terence
Cronin, John


Anderson, Donald
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Archer, Peter
Bradley, Tom
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Armstrong, Ernest
Brooks, Edwin
Dalyell, Tarn


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Barnes, Michael
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barnett, Joel
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bessell, Peter
Chapman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydmy
Coe, Denis
Dewar, Donald


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Dickens, James

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 150, Nose 232.

Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, John (Reading)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, Thomas (webthoughton)


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur


Find, Harold
Lamas, Kenneth
Randall, Harry


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeeton)
Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lubbock, Eric
Rees, Merlyn


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Frastir, John (Norwood)
McCann, John
Rose, Paul


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Sheldon, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackie, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gregory, Arnold
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Griffiths Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Slater, Joseph


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Small, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Mtchaei


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt, Hn. Richard
Swain, Thomas


Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swingler, Stephen


Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin T W


Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Horner, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwnght, Edwin (Dearne valley)


Hougltton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wallace, George


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Albert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hoy, James
Neal, Harold
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Huckfield, Lesile
Newens, Stan
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wellbeloved, James


HugJws, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn, Pliilip(Derby,S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Janne-, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Yates, Victor


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles



Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. loan L. Evans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is Amendment No. 14, with which I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendment: No. 17, in Clause 11, in page 10, line 22, at end insert:
(7) Where a landlord has served a notice to quit after the initial date and before the passing of this Act and the reason for the service of the said notice was one of those specified in section 26(1) of the principal Act, notwithstanding the landlord's failure to specify the said grounds in the said notice, the landlord shall not be liable to make any additional payment as provided by section 9 of this Act.

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 30, at the end to insert:
(7) Where a landlord has served a notice to quit after the initial date and before the passing of this Act and the reason for the service of the said notice was one of those specified in section 25(1) of the principal Act, notwithstanding the landlord's failure to specify the said grounds in the said notice, the landlord shall not be liable to make any additional payment as provided by section 9 of this Act.
The Amendment refers to a matter which I raised in Standing Committee on a Scottish Clause. I said then that


it might very well also apply to the English Clause, and we have therefore put down Amendments to cover both Clause 10 and Clause 11. They concern the position of the landlord who last November may properly have served a notice to quit. The initial date for the Bill was 1st November, which is very close to the beginning of the Martinmas term, and it is unlikely that landlords were then fully aware of the details to be required by the Clauses. They cannot reasonably be expected to have become aware of them for quite a time after the publication of the Bill, because it is unlikely that it would be every-day reading in the average landlord's home. Therefore, as it has not been standard practice in Scotland, England or Wales to state specific reasons, which are now necessary, in notices to quit, there may well be many landlords who failed to do so immediately after 1st November out of sheer and natural ignorance.
For example, a notice sent out in November last will not take effect until after this Bill is law, but failure to state specific reasons in the notice means that four years' rent has to be paid under Clause 9 in each case. This matter was commented upon in the edition of the Scots Law Times of 12th January, 1968. I do not propose to read the article at length. The heading was:
Notices to quit agricultural holdings under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1967.
The sub-heading was:
Is it negligent not to know the contents of an Act of Parliament before it has been passed? 
The general trend of the article, which is of considerable length, is that it would be a matter of great injustice if the compensatory payments had to be paid merely because notices did not fulfil the requirements of a Statute which had come out so recently as to make it virtually impossible for those serving the notices to know it.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough in Committee to welcome the point when I made it rather late in the day on this Clause, and we have put down this Amendment in the hope of clearing the difficulty up. The effect of the Amendment would be to release from the four years' resettlement grant notices

which were served between 1st November, which was the initial date, and the passing of the Bill. It is with that objective that it has been put down.

Mr. John Mackie: As he has said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) drew attention in Committee to the danger that a landlord who gave notice to quit soon after the introduction of the Bill might inadvertently fail to give it in the terms required by Clauses 10 and 11 and find himself obliged to pay the new sum to the individual concerned, even though the notice to quit had been given for a purely agricultural reason.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture accept the hon. Gentleman's argument and we are indebted to him for pointing out this possibility. However, the Amendment will not do quite what is required. It is cast rather too widely and would—unintentionally, I am sure—allow a landlord perhaps to avoid payment of compensation for private afforestation, for example, and would not give the tenant the opportunity to query the notice with the Agricultural Land Tribunal or, in Scotland, the Land Court on non-agricultural grounds, although he is entitled to do so when four years' rent depend on it.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about his legal reading and the point as to whether or not it is negligent not to know the law. The law says, of course, that ignorance of it is no excuse. However, we take the point about Bills, which are not law, and if the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment, I undertake to introduce another Amendment at a later stage which will give effect to the same general principle, which we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out.

Mr. Stodart: I gladly fall in with the hon. Gentleman's request. It would have been a miracle if my drafting of a provision on such a subject had covered all the points necessary. This is a matter in which considerable injustice might be done, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11.

(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 9 IN SCOTLAND.)

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 21, at end to insert:
(c) the relevant notice is a notice to which, apart from the provisions of section 18 or section 19 of this Act, section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act, 1958, would apply and, if an application for consent in respect of the notice is made to the court in pursuance of the said section 25(1), the court consent to its operation and state in the reasons for their decision that they are satisfied with regard to the matter mentioned in paragraph (a), or the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) to (iii), of section 18(2) of this Act; or.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment 16, also standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in line 37, after "Act", insert:
or in section 18(2)(a) of this Act".

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: These two Amendments are consequential on the new Clauses in Part III of the Bill so they are, in a sense, paving Amendments. Clause 11 deals with the circumstances in which a landlord, who gives a notice to quit becomes liable to make the new additional payments of four years' rent to a tenant—that is only when he requires the land for a non-agricultural purpose. He is not obliged to pay them if he proposes to use the land for an agricultural purpose.
Clause 18, however, creates a new set of circumstances in which a landlord may issue a notice to quit to a near relative of a deceased tenant, and these Amendments are required to ensure that the landlord will not be liable to make the additional payments, if the notice to quit, which is given on the grounds set out in Clause 18(2), is given for agricultural purposes.
These Amendments take account of an Amendment we propose to make to Clause 18 to enable the Land Court to consent to a notice to quit if a near relative successor has neither sufficient agricultural training or experience to fit him to run the holding. The Amendments we are now discussing therefore take account of the fact that a landlord may

under Clause 18(2) state in a notice to quit that the notice is given because either, first, the tenant has not the training or experience required; or secondly, he proposes to use the land for amalgamation.
Amendment 15 provides that if the landlord states either of these reasons in his notice to quit, he will not be liable to make the new payment of four years' rent under Clause 9. It is, of course, clear that, if the land is required for amalgamation, this is an agricultural purpose and the provision for non-payment of the additional four years' rent is in line with the principles of Part II of the Bill. But, in the case of notices to quit given because of the tenant's lack of agricultural training or experience, the land might, or might not be going to be used for an agricultural purpose. We therefore have to modify the effect of Amendment 15 by ensuring, by Amendment 16, that the landlord shall be liable to make the additional payments, in cases where a notice to quit is consented to on the grounds that the tenant has neither adequate training nor experience—if the land is in fact to be used for a nonagricultural purpose.
All this is in accordance with the general principles in Part II of the Bill. Although the Amendment sounds complicated, I hope that my explanation has been sufficiently lucid for its purpose to be understood.

Mr. Stodart: Despite all his efforts, the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State serves to emphasise the extreme complexity of Clause 11, which brought from the Secretary of State one of the biggest bombshells of his life on Second Reading when he said that it was not complicated but extremely simple. Those who wrestled with it in Committee did not find any reason to share that view.
Having examined this Amendment, my conclusions about its meaning coincide with those the Under-Secretary of State has given and because it deals to such an extent with—and, it would be fair, to say is occasioned by—the Clauses to which we shall soon be coming, this does not seem to be the time at which to start a debate which would no doubt immediately he ruled out of order. I will say, therefore, that I accept this


Amendment as being an essential perquisite of Clauses which we shall discuss later, and I have no objection to that. We reserve our position on those Clauses, however.

Sir John Gilmour: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I take it that if a tenant dies and the heir to the lease loses his claim to it, through his inability to farm, this extra four years' compensation would be paid to that would-be successor to the lease. If a landlord has a farm which he wishes to put to some non-agricultural use, but of which he has a tenant with no heir likely to succeed to the farm, he might try to continue the lease to that tenant during the tenant's lifetime, but if, having done that, he then had to pay an extra four years' compensation to the heir who was not to become the tenant, that would be unfair and would be loading it rather heavily against the landlord. It would be penalising the landlord who, by his goodness, had allowed the tenancy to continue during the tenant's lifetime.

Mr. Buchan: I am not clear where the difficulty is. In the first place, it will have to be decided whether the heir is eligible. If he is, the decision will then have to be made on the basis of whether the land is to be used as non-agricultural land, or agricultural land. If it is to be used as non-agricultural land, the four years' reorganisation payment would become due, but it would be due only in the case of dispossession for a non-agricultural purpose such as development.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 37, after Act ', insert:
' or in section 18(2)(a) of this Act '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 1, leave out from beginning to ' references ' and insert:

(9) In this sectiont.—

(a)

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21.

Mr. Buchan: The significant Amendment is No. 21, which again underlines

what has been said about complexity. These four Amendments are required to make the changes to Clause 11 which are consequential on the introduction in Committee of the Clauses which now form Part III. Clause 11 sets out the circumstances in which the new payments provided for in Clause 9 are to be made and provides in particular for the landlord stating in a notice to quit the reasons for his giving the notice. This is required to make it clear whether the notice is given for a non-agricultural purpose, thus attracting the additional payments, or for an agricultural purpose, thus not attracting the additional payments.
In Clause 19 we have made special arrangements for the transitional period between the publication of these Clauses and the passing of the Bill. This is analogous to other aspects of the Bill. One of the provisions is that a landlord who has served on a near relative a notice to quit under Section 6(3) of the 1958 Act before the passing of the Bill may notify the tenant that if the tenant serves a counter-notice, the landlord proposes to apply for consent on amalgamation grounds, or, under Amendment No. 23, on the ground of the successor's lack of agricultural training or experience.
The Amendment therefore provides that where a landlord makes such a notification to the tenant in accordance with the procedure set out in Clause 19, any statement which he makes in the notification will be treated as though it had been made when he gave the original notice to quit. The effect is to ensure that where a notice to quit was given during the transitional period and a subsequent notification has to be served, setting out the reasons given for seeking consent to dispossess the tenant, the reasons given in the subsequent notification shall be treated as though they had been reasons given in the original notice to quit, for the purpose of determining whether the landlord is liable to make the new additional payments under Clause 9. These Amendments help and strengthen the position.

Mr. Stodart: I want only to repeat that this is yet another part of what we regard as the distasteful provisions to which we are coming, and that is speaking with a degree of moderation to which I am not accustomed. However, this fits in with the transitional Clause to take account


of Part III. I cannot say that I welcome the Amendments, but, in view of the debate to come, they are certainly a necessary part of these provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 3, leave out "and" and insert "(b)".

Amendment No. 20, in page 11, line 7, leave out "and" and insert "(c)".

Amendment No. 21, in page 11, line 10, at end insert:
(d) subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall have effect in the case of a notice to quit to which, apart from section 19 of this Act, section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act, 1958 would apply as if any statement made in a notification under subsection (2) of the said section 19 had been made in the relevant notice.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 18.

(TERMINATION IN CASE OF NEAR RELATIVES OF DECEASED TENANT.)

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll): I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 15, line 33, leave out Clause 18.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 27, in page 17, line 15, leave out. Clause 19; Amendment No. 33. in page 18, line 20, leave out Clause 20; Amendment No. 41, in Clause 51, page 40, line 12, leave out
and Part III of this Act 
and Amendment No. 43, in Title, line 7, leave out from "purposes" to "to" in line 10.

Mr. Noble: Our reason for proposing to leave out Clause 18 is based simply and solely on the fact that we believe that it is not in the best interests of Scottish agriculture for it to be included in the Bill. In Committee, there were a number of discussions about why the Clause should have been introduced after Second Reading and about whether there were proper negotiations and so on. I do not want to waste any time in debates of that sort, because we now have the Clause and it is our duty to decide whether it is bad.
As the House knows, I am a landlord and, as the House probably knows, I have never been a tenant. But many of my friends in Scotland are tenants and I have discussed these matters with them

frequently. The by-election which I fought in 1958 was exactly at the time when the legislation of that date was going through the House. The by-election was in an agricultural community and, naturally, I got the full arguments from both sides. I said them, as I say now, that the 1958 alteration was correct and that restoring the position, although not in the same form, was wrong.
One of the main reasons why this form of legislation is bad is that it is inevitably based on hard cases. I do not know exactly how many cases have arisen since the 1958 Act repealed the earlier provisions, but in Committee it was suggested that over the last year or two there had been only two such cases. If that is so, I know of one of them, because I was responsible for bringing it to the attention of the Scottish Office. It was an extremely hard luck case of a young man who had always worked for his father. When his father died, at a great age—the young man had, in fact, been farming the land for the previous 15 years—I tried, first with his landlord and then with the Crofters Commission, then with the Highlands Development Board and then with the Scottish Office, to see whether there was some way in which we could give this, by then not so young, man a chance to stay on his farm.

6.30 p.m.

This particular case would not have been covered in any way by the provisions of this Clause. As so often happens with these things that are brought to the attention of Members, this case (could not conceivably have been related to a two-man farm. It was barely a one-man farm, and only that because the young man concerned had been brought up on it, lived it, and was prepared to work on it and make a very small living from it. If there were only two such cases, one of them certainly would not have been affected in any way by what we are considering in Clause 18.

Mr. Donald Dewar: In the Clause there is the vital proviso of discretion to the Land Court as to what a fair and reasonable landlord would do. If the case the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is so outstandingly hard, that might apply.

Mr. Noble: It might, and I hope that it ay be so. This is an individual case


and I had sympathy with the tenant. I told the landlord that I could not agree with his view about it. Under Clause 18 the landlord would have been strengthened in his view that this was a nonviable farm and therefore should not pass in the way that I felt in this particular case it should.
In Committee the Under-Secretary took the view that because there were only a few cases in the past it could not be all that important a change. He said:
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not exaggerate the effects of these changes. It is important for the individual involved "—
and there I agree with him—
but it would be wrong to suggest that it is of great importance for the agricultural economy of Scotland. The number of cases arising in a year under Section 6 of the 1958 Act is small, and the effect of our provision on the pattern of agriculture is consequently not likely to be significant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 1st February, 1968; c. 551.]
This is not a question whether it is one or two cases; it is a question of the pattern that has existed over many hundreds of years, between landlord and tenant. Often I have listened to debates in this House and heard from one side or the other, people arguing that all landlords are wicked and all tenants are paragons of virtue. I have lived all my life in an agricultural setting, and I have never heard such arguments in any agricultural community, because an agricultural community is a practical community. It knows that some tenants are not perfect and that some landlords are not perfect either. It knows of the relationship between them. The trust and confidence between perhaps 95 per cent. of landlord and tenants has played an extremely important part in the build-up of efficiency in the system.
This change is significant because I believe that in trying to put the matter right for the one or two hard cases that might exist per year—

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchanindicated dissent.

Mr. Noble: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, and I am sure he will adduce his view in due course—but it is in any case a very small number, and in order to try to treat the small number of cases and make a law covering such hard cases, we are fundamentally undermining the relationship between landlord

and tenant, which has existed satisfactorily for many years.
It is a feature of agriculture in Scotland and England that there has been a tendency, going on for all of my lifetime, for the number of tenant farmers to reduce, and the number of owner-occupiers to increase quite considerably. Though their number is diminishing, there is still an important rôle for tenant farmers to play in our system. This is in part perhaps because it is the only way that young people without very much capital can get into farming, and if they are successful, in due course buy their own place. In part they have an important rôle to play because there are many people who have ideas, often new and exciting ideas, who are able to take advantage of a landlord who is prepared to back them. Often these people are in the forefront of progress.
It is interesting that this proposal should be brought forward, at a late stage, creating as it does an hereditary system in farming. This from the party which is against the hereditary system in everything else. This is merely an interesting sidelight, and I do not want to develop it to any great extent. It is, however, one of the serious dangers to agriculture. There is no doubt that during the period between 1948 and 1958 there was a considerable reluctance on the part of a number of landlords, either to let their farms, or, if they let them, to put as much money into them, as much power behind the elbows of their tenants as perhaps was needed. This was because the tenant did not have security of tenure—he had complete fixity of tenure. This makes for a difference in the approach which any prudent landlord—a phrase often used in this House—makes in dealing with the situation.
In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a great deal of play about this having the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of the National Farmers' Union. It is true that at fairly regular intervals, once every year or so, the N.F.U. puts a little note round saying that it thinks that this is a good idea. Like the present holder of the office, I was Secretary of State for a number of years and I can honestly say that the N.F.U. never once raised this with me as being something of real importance


for the extra efficiency of Scottish agriculture.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It did not expect anything from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Noble: That might be. It might have been convinced by the arguments which I made continuously on this subject in the past. If it had been something of importance I cannot believe that the N.F.U. would not have raised it when I was Secretary of State because of the opportunity of getting some publicity.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Dewarrose—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughesrose—

Mr. Noble: I cannot give way to two hon. Members at once. I will give way to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely the right hon. Gentleman reads the agricultural Press? Surely he reads the Scottish Farmer and knows that the most popular writer for that journal is a man called William Young? If he does not know William Young's ideas about this, he is not following agricultural journalism.

Mr. Dewar: About 30 seconds ago the right hon. Gentleman said that it was possible that the N.F.U. had been convinced by the continuous repetition of his own excellent arguments. Was he making these arguments in a vacuum? I would have thought that they were in response to some sort of agitation or some awareness of the problem shown by the public.

Mr. Noble: In reply to the last intervention, as I told the House, I fought the by. election in an agricultural area on this issue. In reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, of course I am aware of the writings of Willie Young. He is one of the most prolific writers I know. Before his day there was a Mr. MacDonald of Blyth, who wrote continuously on this subject, and he bored even the I do not believe that any serious leader of the N.F.U. in Scotland would stand up and say that he regarded this as one of the key points, necessary to safeguard Scottish agriculture.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House but arguments on this. point are often based on the fact that what a farmer needs to farm successfully is security of tenure. Everybody

who has farmed will agree about that. But this Bill does not give security of tenure; it gives fixity of tenure. The Government may just as well admit it and not try to quibble about it. I have often heard the argument that if the farming is badly carried out by the heir there are ample provisions in the 1948 Act under which the farmer can be dispossessed for bad husbandry.
All I can say is that in all the time I have known Argyllshire I have known only one farm dispossessed for bad husbandry. He was dispossessed by the Department of Agriculture during the war. The Department ran his farm for six or seven years and when it had finished with it, it had to pay him several thousand pounds for having run the farm so badly. The dispossessing of people for bad husbandry is a very rare action and when it is done it is not very successfuil.
The Secretary of State will have serious worries about this matter because he is the biggest landlord in Scotland and probably has more farms under this control than anybody else.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who is the next biggest?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member can make his own point on that matter. The Secretary of State is certainly the biggest, and at the time when I remember coming back to farming after the war the two worst groups of farms in Scotland were those run by the Secretary of State and the Forestry Commission. I am glad that things have improved a little since, but those farms were outstandingly bad examples of the system of State landlords.
We in Scotland have always had a much higher appreciation of the importance of security of tenure. For that reason, leases in Scotland have always run for a much longer time than they have in England. We realise the importance of the issue, especially in a country mainly given to livestock rearing.
I find it very odd that the Government should seek to make a major change in the land tenure system of Scotland, and to do so only in respect of Scotland. Is it not a little curious that not one English Minister is in the Chamber? It is widely known that the English N.F.U., which has as much right as the Scottish N.F.U. to be interested in small farms and in


farm tenure, has not asked for this provision, because it shares my view that it is not in the long-term interest of agriculture.
It will be interesting if the Minister will say that the English N.F.U. has asked for it. I am certain that he will not. But if something which is believed by many English farmers not to be in the interest of their community is made applicable only because one or two hard cases came to light a few months after the Bill was drafted, and after the Second Reading debate, and therefore it was thought a good thing to import this Clause in Committee, it proves that this a Government sop to the Scottish people in the N.F.U. who have been asking for it, and that they do not feel that it is really of importance to agriculture in Scotland. For that reason my hon. Friends and I will oppose the inclusion of the Clause.

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I am glad to have this opportunity to declare Government policy on a very important principle. I am also glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made such a direct challenge. He rightly called attention to the fact that he fought a by-election when this was a matter of public discussion and controversy in Scotland. I remember it very well. I believe that the first vote he cast was on the Report stage of the 1958 Bill.

Mr. Noble: It was not my first vote.

Mr. Ross: It was one of his first votes.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has been doing a little research. He has heard about my discussions with landlords at a private meeting that I had with them in St. Andrew's House and has proceeded to find out whether or not I directed the opposition to this proposal in 1958. He did not come into the House until after 1958. I do not know whether he had by then released himself from the Liberal Party. It may be that he was opposing the very thing that he is now proclaiming.
I have the advantage of knowing the right hon. Gentleman. I used to go round the country with him doing a radio programme when he was a Liberal. In

those days the Scottish farmers were very angry because of what the Government were doing, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree. This matter was contested in the House. The opinions of farmers were produced. The Scottish farmer has never resiled from his position of opposition.
Whatever arguments there may have been about fixity, the Scottish farmers were satisfied that the pendulum had swung too far back and that they were in a worse position than they had ever been. The new incontestable notice to quit went against everything they felt they were entitled to after the war. There had been a considerable change in 1940.
In the present mood of Scotland it is quite wrong for the right hon. Member to say, "The English farmers do not want it; let us pay no attention to what the Scottish farmers want". I should have thought that that was a very dangerous argument to use. Our concern must always be to try to deal with the problems of Scotland at the right time and in the right way.

Mr. Noble: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. I said at the beginning of my speech that in opposing the Clause I was thinking about the best interests of Scottish agriculture in referring to the fact that the English N.F.U. did not want it, and citing it as a rather curious example of the fact that the Government feel that they must do something which they do not regard as very important to Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman said that it strengthened his argument opposing this being done for Scotland, that the English farmers took a different view. That is a weak argument for him to put forward. It is not one that I would expect to come from any Scottish Member. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the English N.F.U. did not shut its eyes to the fact that there might well be hardships. In its publication "Tenure of Farm Land", the English union indicated that it did not feel that a special case on behalf of sons succeeding stood any chance of success and added that it hoped
that all landlords and agents will give particular consideration to the sons' hopes and recognise that confidence in succession gives


many older farmers a strong incentive to maintain and improve their farm as though it was their own.
That was the attitude of the N.F.U. in England and Wales. But there is no doubt where the Scottish N.F.U. stands.
When the Government's proposals were announced, Mr. A. B. Campbell, convener of the union's Legal and Commercial Committee, said:
Good farming needs long-term planning and this is only possible for a tenant farmer where he has security of tenure. It is reasonable that a farmer's immediate family should be able to succeed to the tenancy and this right will remove the uncertainty which has hindered tenant farmers from spending money on capital improvements. The Union has pressed for the restoration of a measure of security of tenure since 1958. We are therefore pleased that the Government is introducing the necessary legislation as part of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill instead of trying to find Parliamentary time for a separate Act".
This was the nub of the point of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not want to make much of it, but he wondered why the provision was introduced in this Bill in this way. He should know, as a former Secretary of State, that one can be held up if one has to wait for a special place in the legislative programme. If one sees a suitable vehicle, then one is wise to use it.
The right hon. Gentleman and others have said, "But we did not know about this on Second Reading". I have been a Member of the House for a fair length of time, and I could list a number of Bills in the past 10 years in which very important changes were made after the Second Reading. A very important part—I think that it was Part I—of the Children and Young Persons Act did not apply to Scotland. After the Second Reading, after the Committee was set up—and there was not a Scottish Minister on it—the Government decided to apply it to Scotland. I should not be surprised if it was the hon. Gentleman who was deputed to be the Scottish Minister in respect of this new-found interest in the legislation.

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman's memory, for the third time tonight, is quite wrong. However, he said that the N.F.U. has been pressing for this. We know that. No doubt, mature consideration was given to the Bill for many months before 1st November, when it was published. What caused the right hon.

Gentleman to ignore that pressure, as he must have done, and suddenly put it in on 4th December?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and this will be borne out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—that we tried for a long time to get agreement between the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the N.F.U., because every Government, when making changes of this nature, tries to make them on the basis of agreement. That went on for a long time—through 1965. It became obvious eventually that there would be no movement by the Scottish Landowners' Federation. When it was evident that we might be moving towards drawing up proposals for legislation, they sought certain assurances—and I think the correspondence was read in Committee—and wanted to see Ministers. I assure the House that no pledges were given, but their representatives did see Ministers; they saw me. We discussed the matter fully. It was evident to me that, once again, they were completely opposed to the principle; they were inflexible. But I found the meeting useful.
The pressures were not merely there; they were here in the House. There were Questions during those years. Two hon. Members tried to introduce Bills under the Ten Minute Rule procedure to do exactly this. I assure hon. Members that there was very considerable anxiety in certain parts of Scotland. In one part of the Highlands a landlord acted, and notice to quit was given to a farmer. The right hon. Gentleman's memory is right concerning one case. There have been others. I know of some in Ayrshire. But I equally know of the effect of the existence of this. I know of cases in which the factor called on a widow shortly after the funeral. This kind of thing happens. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will be denying some of the things which have happened. He will be denying what his right hon. Friend said about the case with which he has sympathy.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie (Ross and Cromarty): To confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I attended a funeral myself. The factor was there, and he approached the widow before we left the church.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Before the right hon. Gentleman referred to factors attending funerals, he was in the middle of explaining—and it was very interesting—why this was not dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill, but was put in in Committee. I understood him to say that negotiations were going on all this time. But he seemed to contradict that, because I understood him to say that the negotiations with the Landowners' Federation had stopped in 1965. If there were no negotiations with the landowners after 1965, the pressure from the N.F.U. was there all the time. What was it that caused the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind after the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. We are on Report.

Mr. Ross: A meeting was held by the Department of Agriculture with the Landowners' Federation and the N.F.U. on 20th December, 1965. Therefore, we are talking about not early 1965 but the end of 1965. The Scottish Landowners' Federation wrote to the Department of Agriculture on 29th September, 1966. A certain amount of consideration was given to its point of view and there were discussions with other people as well.

Mr. Galbraith: That was all before the Second Reading.

Mr. Ross: Of course, it was all before the Second Reading. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that our opinions have been hardening about what could and should be done as a result of the consultations which we had. Probably we could have produced these Amendments earlier in a much rougher form. But I do not think that anyone would have liked that. We took time to ensure that they were presentable Amendments, and met some of the principles which had been evolved in agricultural progress in the previous two years concerning amalgamations, and so on.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Mr. Ian MacArthur(Perth and East Perthshire)rose—

Mr. Ross: We are not in Committee. I should like to make progress and set out what has been done.
Hon. Members should not think that this was suddenly thought up and

suddenly put in the Bill. However, we must note the feelings of the agricultural community which have existed since 1958 and which have been strengthened here and there by events. That is the kind of thing which people want—not just that the power should be there but people who are prepared to use that power when circumstances lend urgency to something being done fairly quickly.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: If it is true that this was involved in the right hon. Gentleman's thinking at that time, why did he not announce that it was his intention to introduce a new Clause in Committee? Why did he not give the House some indication of his intent, so that this very large change in the law could have been discussed by the House?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this was raised on Second Reading. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Thomas Steele), and, indeed, I gave him an answer at that time. I think it was just about this time that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) announced publicly that they would have Ten Minute Rule Bills to do just exactly this.
When there is that kind of feeling growing up and when there is an Agriculture Bill before the House I think it is right, having taken the decision, to implement it by that means.

Mr. MacArthur: But why did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Landowners' Federation was aware of it before we put the Clause down and there was ample time to consider it. I certainly have no apologies to make with respect to the speed with which we acted. Indeed, some people may say we acted far too slowly and should not have tried to get agreement and co-operation before we proceeded.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that to get the best out of agriculture we need co-operation between landlord and tenant, but I do not think that those people are right who claim


that that will be undermined and destroyed by what is being done here. I am quite sure it will not. There has been far too much exaggeration of the effects of this. In saying that, I draw upon the discussions I had with the landowners themselves. I do not think that they are suddenly going to change their altitude to the sons or near relatives of those who are their tenants. I do not think they will suddenly change their whole ideas about the proper way to run their estates. Far from it. I do not think that the consequences of this will be a tremendous reduction in the number of tenants in Scotland. Far from it.
I think the hon. Gentleman was right in what he said about what has happened since 1958. I think it is true that if there has been a reduction in the number of tenant farmers in Scotland, it has been due to the fact that landlords have been realising what gains they could make and have been selling off farms. I have often argued this with my farming friends. I represent a farming community. When they tell me about the sad state of agriculture I draw their attention to a farm which has just been sold and I ask, "If things are so bad, why were such high prices offered for that farm?" and they say," It is the wrong people who are getting the farms." This runs counter to the suggestion being made that landlords desire to get the right tenants. One would have thought that they were at least as interested in getting the right buyers as well. We must get these things aright, and in the right perspective, and not have so much exaggeration of the effects.
It is suggested that what we are doing is creating the hereditary system in relation to tenancy. We are not abolishing the hereditary system in land ownership. That was an argument I have heard more than once. What we seek to get within this pattern of stability is a certain measure of safeguard and of social justice in the balance of rights, and I am satisfied that what we have done is the right thing and that it is being done at the right time. Consultations have taken place and I do not think that the Bill will have on the farming industry the adverse effect which some people have suggested. We are continuing exactly some of the conditions already existing; we are bringing about a very narrow

range of change, and only a narrow range will be affected.
I hope it will help the House if I explain in some detail what we are doing. We do not say that the landlord will never be able to recover his farm when the tenant dies. If there is no successor, or not one who wants the farm, the position remains as it is at present. Further, if a legatee, or the only people entitled to succeed, are not near relatives of the deceased tenant, the landlord can still, if any such person succeeds to the holding, give him an incontestable notice to quit, and a near relative is defined as a wife or husband and a son and daughter. When the successor is a near relative we are providing for two sets of circumstances in which the landlord can, with the consent of the Land Court, repossess his land. In the first place, if he requires a holding to amalgamate with another holding to form a more satisfactory economic unit, the holding from which the successor is to be dispossessed must, in such a case, be smaller than to be capable of giving full-time employment to two men. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there might have been an argument for our going further, but this is one of the things where we are taking into account the possibility of amalgamation and the making of viable and economic units, and that is what the Government are seeking.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: In that case, as the right hon. Gentleman says it would be a holding giving employment to two men, would it not be in order for a husband and wife to count, in this case, as two individuals?

Mr. Ross: Oh, yes. In this case man embraces woman, and so I think that answers the point of the hon. Gentleman.
Provided the holding is not already a satisfactory economic unit, the landlord may seek to repossess it for amalgamation with other land.
The other safeguard which we propose to introduce, and which is contained in Amendment No. 23, at page 16, line 11, is to provide that the landlord may seek the consent of the Land Court to dispossess a successor, even if that successor is a near relative, on the grounds that the person who has succeeded to the holding has neither sufficient training in


agriculture nor sufficient experience in farming to enable that person to farm the holding with reasonable efficiency. This was the point raised by more than one hon. Member in Committee.

I think that what we are doing is reasonable.

Mr. John Brewis: I know a case which worries me very much. The son of the tenant has been convicted of cattle stealing from his neighbour. He pleaded guilty and was convicted. Normally, no landlord would want to take somebody convicted in those circumstances. As I understand it, under the Bill he can become the tenant of the holding when his father, the tenant, dies. I cannot see anything in any of the legislation which would enable the landlord to put such a man out.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the 1949 Act he will find that an unsatisfactory person as a tenant can beevicted—[Interruption.]—at the discretion of the Land Court.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I remind my right hon. Friend that cattle stealing was not regarded as so bad at the time when the land was acquired, and the right hon. Gentleman who was the last Conservative Prime Minister boasted that his family were the most successful cattle stealers on the Border.

Mr. Speaker: This is fascinating, but it is history, and we must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Ross: We must come to much more recent history.

Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Hawkinsrose—

Mr. Ross: I must get on.

Mr. Hawkins: I want to raise a particular point.

Mr. Ross: We shall come back to particular points, I am sure, and the hon. Gentleman will make one of his very able speeches again.
What we have done is to protect the landlord from having to accept as a tenant anyone who has not sufficient qualification or sufficient experience of farming. Altogether, then, there are several different circumstances in which

a landlord may be able to repossess his land, and I cannot see that what we propose should make the change in the position of landlords as a whole so desperate as some hon. Members have suggested.
I do not think that there will be any drying up of the supply of tenanted farms because of what we are proposing. It may be that there will be a small reduction in the number to let, but it must be remembered that they will remain tenanted farms, and that is not unimportant. They will be tenanted by people who, according to the judgment of the Land Court, are fit and proper persons in terms of farming experience. Opposing this proposal must run counter to the great patriotic farming speeches which hon. Gentlemen opposite make time and time again. That is why I am glad that we have this opportunity for them to show clearly where they stand.
Often, in the past, a landlord has sold a holding rather than let it, but the number should not be exaggerated. Neither should we exaggerate the point made about landlords being reluctant to invest in holdings. Let us remember what the N.F.U. say about the reluctance of the tenant and the attitude which he takes to spending money on his farm. The present law discourages a tenant from investing in his holding and from giving of his best in the running of the farm in his later years.
It must be appreciated that though these hard cases are few in number, they have an influence which goes far beyond any one district. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) will all be able to tell us about one and the same case, because the effect that it had upon the Highlands of Scotland is something with which we have to reckon.
It is not unfair to say that we have now met in considerable measure, though not in full measure, the complaints made about the difficulties and dangers inherent in the change which was made by Section 6 of the Agriculture Act, 1958. It may be that there will be hard cases


left, and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has cited one. But what we have done merits the support and the congratulation of the House, because we have been able to meet a Scottish problem within the framework of our existing procedures. It may be that we have shown how unfair are some of the criticisms about getting the right thing done at the right time for purely Scottish problems.

Mr. Brewis: The Secretary of State might have produced some better reasons for this Amendment. In fact, he chose to make a political debating speech.
One of the strong points which he can put forward is that, in these days, the equipment of a farm is becoming more expensive. Very often it is necessary that, as part of a partnership, a tenant has to lay out considerable sums on equipment, and it is right that he should have a certain security of tenure in order to get back the money which he has invested. That is about the strongest point in favour of the Amendment. However, it can be dealt with by the compensation provisions in the principal Act. If they are not satisfactory, the right hon. Gentleman should have looked at them in order to set out more clearly that a tenant is entitled to suitable compensation.

7.15 p.m.

I am sure that everyone will agree with the average farmer who wants one of his sorts to follow him in the tenancy of his holding. Quite often a farmer has two sons, and I know of one farmer who has four, all of whom now have farms of their own as tenants. The real danger of the Clause is that the number of farms to let will dry up, and that would be a very serious loss to the Scottish agricultural community. There is no doubt in my mind that a farm to let is very useful for the younger son of a farmer, for a young man wanting to come into the industry, or even for an older man who has been an agricultural worker and has saved, but who has not much capital.

In my constituency, the average dairy farm needs about £60 an acre of a tenant's capital. Land is selling for perhaps £100 an acre. Anyone going into a farm requiring £60 an acre to be spent on it may be able to raise it from a bank. If he buys and has to raise more like £160 an acre, it is quite impossible.

For those who are better off, borrowing £100 an acre from a bank will result in their having to pay something like £8 per £100 in interest. If they are paying rent, it will probably be more like £4 an acre. There is a great economic advantage there. In addition, however bad the landowner is, he will do a little for a farm even if it is only to pay the fire insurance premium. A good landlord will do a lot. A banker will do nothing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: But in Scotland, frequently a banker is the landlord. Often the landlord is chairman of the bank which lends the money.

Mr. Brewis: I am sure that we all agree that partnerships between everyone are very desirable, but perhaps I had better let the hon. Gentleman make his own speech.
We have had experience of what happened between 1949 and 1958, when there was a similar provision in the agricultural legislation. Very few farms were available to let. They tended to be sold, and farms with vacant possession were almost double the price of those with sitting tenants. All this affected the young man wanting to go into farming, because the price of farms became very much higher. A sitting tenant often could buy his farm at one price and, by giving up possession, could sell a short time after for a large profit. Landlords were bribing tenants to give up holdings so that they could sell them with vacant possession.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point? He talks about bribing tenants to give up possession. I thought that he was arguing just now for compensation. What is the difference between bribery to give up possession and compensation to give it up?

Mr. Brewis: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point. I was saying that, if there was an old man in a farm, it might be to the landlord's advantage to offer him £1,000 to give up the farm, so that it could be sold at double the price that would be realised with a tenant in it.
I remember having a farm to let in 1956. There were hundreds of applicants from all over Britain. The man


who eventually got it had made something like 27 different attempts to get a farm over five or six years. Among the applicants there were at least 20 local boys with experience who wanted a farm. After 1958, all 20 of them were fixed up with their own farms in about five years, and that would not have happened unless the 1958 Act had had the effect of bringing more farms on to the market.
By far the best farm would be one where there was a partnership between the landlord and the tenant. At present the tenant has security of tenure for life, with the compensation provision for improvements that he makes. If we make tenancies hereditary, we will turn farming into a closed shop, so that the second or third sons of farmers and young men who have gone through agricultural colleges like Auchincruive will have little chance of getting into the farming industry. Therefore, this Clause should not be allowed into the Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My only reason for troubling the House is that I played a prominent part in the Committee which studied this legislation in great detail in 1957. Mr. Tom Fraser and I were there and I have lively recollections of the proceedings. We had the Scottish N.F.U. lobbying us against the Conservative legislation of that time, because they said that it heavily overloaded the law in favour of the landlord. The Landlords' Federation was also there to back up the Conservative Government.
Large sums had been given away in largesse to the slum owners under the Rent Act, and the big country landlords said, "What about us?", and this was about the last thing that the Conservative Government did. We had a very long struggle contesting this legislation. We had the best arguments, but the Conservatives had a majority. The result was that the landlords got their pound of flesh in the form of this Act, which has been a grievance of the tenant farmers of Scotland ever since.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was not there at the time. He understood he argument from the landlords' point of view. If he had taken part in the long protracted struggle that we had in Committee he would know that it was a struggle between the Conservative Party, which was solidly

behind the landlords, and those of us who wanted justice for the tenant farmers. We were not acting as Socialist propagandists; we were egged on by the Scottish National Farmers' Union. We were backed up by people who knew most about the law of tenant farming in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about hundreds of years of good relations between the landlords in Scotland and their tenants. Where could he have learned that? Only at Eton.
Mr. Speaker is looking at me rather ominously, so I will not bother the House with any long protracted argument. However, I will mention my own immortal constituent, Robert Burns, whose father died after litigation with the local landlord at Lochlea Farm in Ayrshire. Robert Burns wrote some of his bitterest poetry about the landlords, with whom the tenant farmers were supposed to be living like brothers for hundreds of years.
Thomas Carlyle, who followed him, politely described the landlords of his time as a lot of hyenas. I would not dream of using the language of Thomas Carlyle or even of Ramsey Macdonald or even of Tom Johnston. I will leave that subject.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has anticipated me. Perhaps he will come to the Amendment?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was provoked by the idyllic picture of the landlord and tenant getting on so well together. That is not historical fact and it would not pass as fact in any agricultural audience in Scotland.
The Bill will be welcomed by the farming community of Scotland because it does something practical to remedy the injustices under which farmers have suffered for so long.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about the difficulties of the young farmer. One difficulty is that he has to borrow money at 8 per cent. I would point out that often he has to borrow it from a bank which is probably presided over by the Duke of Buccleuch, or families which I had better not mention in the House because of their historical political associations. All this bears heavily on the tenant farmer, but he will be delighted at getting justice from a Labour Government.
I read theScottish Farmerregularly. It is a very interesting paper. The most interesting and ablest journalist in the farming world in Great Britain is Mr. Willie Young whose column is read and appreciated in thousands of homes throughout Scotland. Mr. Willie Young is an ex-Conservative convener of the Ayrshire County Council. We were against each other politically. However, anyone who reads his column regularly—which I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to do—will know that a very deep seated grievance of farmers is the subject of security of tenure.
It is right that there is a rush for farms by young men. I have an extract here about one of the very few sales of land in the West of Scotland. It is headed "Tenant buys a farm from Sir Alec". I do not know who Sir Alec is. I find this description of the sale:
Sir Alec Douglas-Home auctioned off his 318 acres Newtonhead Farm yesterday for £25,000 to one of his own tenants.
To see this sale along came several hundred farmers anxious to buy land, because so little was available. That is the position in Scotland.
Land has gone up in price because the Conservative Government overburdened the 1957 Act for the benefit of the landlords. If the second or third sons of a farmer cannot find an opportunity to make good in following their father, the handicap has been placed upon them fairly and squarely by the landlords of Scotland who are organised politically in the Conservative Party.
I have no quarrel with the right hon. Member for Argyll. He and I are very pleasant to each other when we meet. I thought that he had given up his interest in agriculture for fish. However, his conception of the relationship between landlords and tenants is simply a glimpse of unreality. Therefore, I hope that the farmers of Scotland will realise that the Labour Government is not their enemy. We are doing our utmost to get a fair deal for the honest, hardworking farmer who will perhaps not even vote for us at election time. I am sure that there will be gratitude in the hearts of many humble farming folk when they know that this Clause has been carried and the Bill is finally on the Statute Book.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I intend briefly to support the Minister's proposals and to oppose the Amendment. I find it remarkable that the Conservative Party feels itself far better informed about what is best for Scottish Agriculture than the Scottish N.F.U. This is clearly what hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are saying.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said that the N.F.U. was pressing this, but it was not pressing it very hard, that it was going softly, that it did not think it was very important, but what the Secretary of State said when he quoted Mr. Campbell represents the view which has always been held by the representative body of farmers in Scotland, and surely these people know something about the situation.
I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he talked about this being rather a question of hard cases. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) wish to intervene?

Mr. Galbraith: When reference was made to hard cases, I remarked, in parentheses as it were, that hard cases often make bad law.

Mr. Johnston: Still in parentheses, I think that hard cases ought to be dealt with in this House. There are hard cases, and this has been conceded by the right hon. Gentleman. I know of some, the Secretary of State knows of many more, and I think that a series of hard cases necessitates the introduction of legislation to deal with them in some radical form.
Farming is a long-term business. As the ex-Minister of State for Scotland said in asotto voceinterruption, it is not very important when or why, but when the Secretary of State for Scotland says that this is being done at the right time, I must say that I think the right time was some time ago.

Mr. Ross: I was referring to the fact that we had a legislative vehicle ready for use.

Mr. Johnston: I thought that the Agriculture Act was equally a legislative vehicle which was ready for use, and that was considered some time ago.


I do not comprehend the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Argyll about fixity of tenure. He says that this Measure will freeze land tenure. I do not think that this is true. I think that there are relevant "outs" at the land court. I am not a farmer, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) looks bleakly at me whenever I rise to speak on these matters. People say that we must improve the farming ladder, that we must provide more opportunities for young people to get farms, but this is difficult to do.
The right hon. Member for Argyll, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, know more about farming than I do, but I am not sure that giving security of tenure to a proficient first-degree blood relationship relative, which is virtually what is being done, will make very much difference. In fact, I wonder what the argument is when someone says, "Very well. Here is a good son who may or may not secure the tenantship of his father's farm". We scrub the question of security of tenure so that the landlord may say that he does not want this bloke, but somebody else, or he wants to put the farm on the market. In terms of the efficient use of the farm, I am not sure that the fact that somebody else manages to get in, perhaps for financial reasons—as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, we are engaged in an auction—that the right man will get the farm. Whoever takes over may transform the place, but he may not be as good as the person who, in normal circumstances, would have succeeded to the place which he knows, a place which, as in the case of Sandy Matheson, a case in my constituency of which the Secretary of State is fully aware, his family has farmed for three generations. I am not sure that this proposal will necessarily result in the better use of land.

Mr. George Willis: As my hon. Friend said, since we became the Government the N.F.U. has been pressing for this proposal, and certainly not in any casual manner. What the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said about this being an occasional reminder is simply not true. The Scottish N.F.U. has been pressing for this for some time, the fact is that it

was impossible to reach any agreement with the landowners, and one was forced to the conclusion that they did not want to reach agreement.
It is significant of the case which has been deployed by the Opposition that the most exciting exchanges have taken place on whether it was right to introduce this provision by means of an Amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Stodartindicated dissent

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) shakes his head. That was the most exciting part of the debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite kept popping up to say that we should not have introduced this by way of an Amendment.

Mr. Noble: It is difficult to know what is going to excite the right hon. Gentleman. In my opening speech I specifically said that I regarded that issue as irrelevant, and the only person who excited the House was the Secretary of State for Scotland when he tried to explain why he had done it in this way.

Mr. Willis: I am easily excited, but the case that I have heard from the benches opposite has not excited me.
As I said sotto voceat the time, what does it matter how it is done? If it is a good thing to do, let us do it now, even by way of an Amendment. The House has not been prevented from debating the matter. In fact, we have had a better debate than we would have had if this provision had been in the Bill originally, because I am sure that English Members would have made scant reference to it during the Second Reading debate. I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life as I have heard tonight.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman making his case. I tried to find out what it was. As I understand it, he made two points. First, that it was not a good thing to base legislation on hard cases. If there are a number of hard cases, surely the thing to do is to alleviate the situation. This is what the House is for. We are wasting our time if we take the view that hard cases do not matter. If we do, we should not be here. We should be in Scotland taking it easy, and not trying to argue the toss here. Our purpose in


being here is to bring these things to the notice of the Government, and to try to persuade them to do something about them.
He said also that this was bad agriculture and quoted the case of two farms taken over during the war by the Government, the tenants of which were dispossessed. I do not know what that has to do with the argument. We were debating the merits of the principal Act of 1958 and the differences between the position before and that afterwards. I have heard nothing to show that agriculture and the state of the land is better and that more farms come on to the market for tenants. Some farms are coming up, but are not necessarily taken by tenant farmers. Representatives of the N.F.U. have several times complained to me that farms are sometimes taken over by the owners because it is profitable and in other cases are being sold. Once they are sold, they are not taken by tenant farmers—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] If not, they will be let by someone who is hoping to exploit the poor tenant farmer.
These are being sold to enlarge existing farms. This might be good, but there are not necessarily more farms for tenant farmers because of the 1958 Act. I have seen no evidence for this and none has been produced tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) quoted the case of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) selling a farm, in which case the tenant ceased to be a tenant and became an owner.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is likely that this farmer borrowed the money for the land from the bank in which the right hon. Member is interested.

Mr. Willis: When one of these farms comes on the market under the 1958 Act, it is generally for sale—

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne(South Angus)indicated dissent

Mr. Willis: Well, this is my information. The young farmer simply cannot take it. This is another complaint made to me by the N.F.U. Someone said that a person who is not a good farmer might culture. In all our dairying districts—I buy it.
A much better case than has been deployed so far would be necessary before we took the Amendment seriously. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West did not produce a good case, though he took a long time. This is a good Clause, and I believe that it will be beneficial.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I had not intended to speak on the Amendment until I heard some of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. I was concerned first because in this landlord-tenant argument, the landlord is built up as an omnipotent ogre following the profit motive. In the last ten days, I have raised with the Under-Secretary the case of a small village joiner with an 18-acre croft of which he was the landlord and of which he could not get possession. We should also consider this kind of case.
I am concerned about the opportunity to enter farming of those from agricultural colleges or those who work their way up through the industry. With the growth in owner-occupation, it is very difficult for such people, because of the size of the financial commitment, to get in that way. At least the tenant system has provided this opportunity. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) may say that we have not proved that there has been any improvement since 1958, but the Government must answer the genuine anxiety of those who feel that the proposal to increase security of tenure will give them less opportunity. Their only way is through tenancies and if the number is to be restricted, this will be serious.
In Committee, mentioning agricultural students, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) quoted a student at Aberdeen University who was concerned about opportunities once he had qualified and had some experience. We should consider the considerable output of these people in Scotland, who come from the colleges and the agricultural courses in universities and want to go into research or manufacturing and—many of them—to farm practically. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this proposal will increase their opportunities? I doubt whether it will.
I am also concerned about those who have worked their way up through agriculture. In all our dairying districts—I


am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has left, since he is probably acquainted with this—there are people prepared to work extremely hard and long hours to earn generally good wages and amass a good deal of money. Their aim has been to get a farm, generally a tenanted one. I know, from talking to them, that they are concerned that, if there is too great a security of tenure, they will have even less opportunity of eventually farming on their own. The object of their hard work—they often work seven days a week, which is more than other agricultural workers—is becoming increasingly difficult for them to realise.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not follow the logic. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, to give an opportunity to somebody who is working his way up in the industry—granted, we hope that there will be greater opportunities—he is prepared to dispossess the proficient son of a farmer who has perhaps been in possession for a long time and who is equally hard working?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not the point. [Hon. Members: "It is.''] I know what happened in the early 1950s. There are examples of people who stayed on, cases of hardship. I know the way that things worked out in practice. I have followed the Land Court cases. A member of my family was concerned in a Land Court case as a tenant. I know the way that this can work. The Secretary of State must tell us whether he believes that his proposal will increase the opportunities for the people I have mentioned—students from agricultural colleges and those who are working their way up in the industry.
My final point concerns a constituency case which I raised two or three years ago with Lord Hughes, who was then the Under-Secretary responsible for agriculture at the Scottish Office. A farmer in my constituency was a tenant holder of one of the holdings of the Department of Agriculture. A few years ago he wanted to write into the lease that he should be able to pass the lease on to his son. This request was refused by the Secretary of State on the grounds that when my constituent eventually gave up the tenancy the Secretary of State wanted to amalgamate the holding with a neighbouring

Department of Agriculture holding. In view of the White Paper which the Government had produced favouring the amalgamation of holdings, I had to explain the case to my constituent and convince him that it was not an isolated individual case but was part of Government policy and that he would have to accept it as such, no matter what his personal feelings were.
I was surprised to hear from the Secretary of State tonight that if a holding was sufficiently large as to justify the employment of two people the arguments for amalgamation would fail and the tenant would be allowed to continue or to pass the tenancy to his heir. This is what brought me to my feet originally. My constituent, who was the tenant of a 70–80 acre holding, was himself employed on that holding and employed his wife and son on it as well.
This occurred within the period in which the Secretary of State has been considering the whole question of security of tenure and preparing legislation for the House. Two years ago he was prepared to refuse a request from one of his tenants to include his heir in the lease. What has happened to change the right hon. Gentleman's view? Should I advise my constituent to reapply to have the name of his son, who is a competent young farmer and who takes an active part in the activities of the local young farmers' club, written into the lease? This is a precise example of the double talk which we get from the Government. I would respect what they are trying to do much more if they would show a greater degree of consistency in their arguments.

Mr. Maclennan: I listened with particular attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who speaks as one who has a special knowledge of this subject. He speaks as a landowner, as he said, and as a farmer. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he opposed the Clause on the ground that it was contrary to the interests of Scottish agriculture. For the rest of his speech I waited for the follow-up. It seemed clear from all that the right hon. Gentleman said that he equated the interests of the Scottish landowner with the interests of Scottish agriculture. I, who have no vested interests, not being a landowner, tenant or farmer, was unimpressed by that argument.
The right hon. Gentleman waited until the end of his speech to produce the ace of trumps with which to defeat the Government's case. It was nothing less than the opinion of the English National Farmers' Union. It would be hard to conceive anything more irrelevant to this debate.
It has been argued, I think more effectively by some of those behind the right hon. Gentleman, that what is at stake is the availability of land and that there should be a frequent changeover of ownership. This is a respectable argument. This measure will not greatly increase the availability of land, nor will it greatly diminish it. Hon. Members opposite have tried to have this argument both ways. They have argued, first, that there is little damage done and that only one or two cases crop up each year. Secondly, they have implied that this proposal will fundamentally alter the whole structure of land tenure in Scotland. I cannot reconcile these arguments. The Opposition, in speech after speech, have failed to reconcile them.

Mr. Noble: If I had spoken for much longer I might have got the point through to the hon. Gentleman's mind. The point which was made simply was that the key to the success is good relations between owner and tenant. As the Secretary of State said, for years owners realised that this was damaging to their relations with tenants. What extra arguments need be added to support the point of view of one very important partner in agriculture?

Mr. Maclennan: I entirely agree about the desirability of there being good relations between landlord and the tenant. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, the right hon. Gentleman must move in a world of illusion if he thinks that this represents the position, particularly in the Highlands. The argument based on the broad notion of the general importance of agriculture of, as it were, dispossessing the tenant is not new in the Highlands. It was adduced as long ago as when James Lock and Patrick Sellar turned small tenants off my constituency. That is precisely the argument to which we are listening tonight.
This proposal is a simple act of justice towards the many small farmers in

particular who have lived in fear of dispossession and whose efficiency has been substantially diminished by the knowledge that their children would not be inheriting the holding. In consequence, they refrained from investing what was needed to make the farm a proper economic unit.
As one hon. Member opposite pointed out, farming today calls for considerable capital expenditure. When a farmer's security is threatened, as it has been in the last decade since the iniquitous Tory legislation of 1958, he is not likely to lay out large sums in capital expenditure, even if he has them available. What the Government propose is an act of justice, and they are to be thoroughly commended for it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Dewar: The only observation in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) with which I disagreed came in his opening sentence when he called this a short debate. I shall take no more than a few minutes because the debate has already gone on long enough and it has largely covered ground which was very well ploughed, for one and a half days, in the Standing Committee.

Mr. MacArthur: But not on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dewar: True, not on the Floor of the House. That point has been made. However, I hope that we can stick to the issues here and that the Conservative Opposition will not raise querulous complaints about procedure in order to rebut the Clause because they are frightened to attack it in principle. They do not want to be caught in open ground on a provision which covers an important matter of principle and which shows where general attitudes lie in relation to the whole of our agriculture and our system of land tenure in Scotland.
The issue here is simple. The Government have introduced a Clause which we regard as equitable and commendable by any reasonable standards. The question is whether the relative of a tenant farmer, who is adequately qualified in skill and who has had adequate experience, should be allowed to follow the tenant when he dies, or should he, at the whim or will of the landlord, no longer


have the right to continue? It is no good talking about amicable relations between landlord and tenant. It is easy to maintain amicable relations if one is the landlord who, by definition, holds the legal whip hand.
I should be prepared to accept the Opposition's case if the opening statement made by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) could be substantiated. He said that the Clause would create considerable disruption in the whole pattern of farming in Scotland. If his subsequent arguments had proved the point, I should reluctantly, have accepted that we must look elsewhere, perhaps at schemes of adequate compensation, in order to make the best of a bad job for the people about whom we are concerned. In that case, I should regretfully have agreed that we ought to turn our back on the Clause, but there was nothing whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's following arguments to justify his sweeping statement. No such arguments have come from his hon. Friends. There have been a few points of varying worth, but it seemed to me that they could either be set aside or be regarded as of meagre importance.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)—I know that he speaks sincerely and feels deeply on this matter—talked about the problem of the man coming up through the agricultural college. A good deal has been made of the argument about the need to have a supply of tenant farms coming on the market. It was asked whether this Measure would do anything to produce more farms for people of that kind. But that is not the question which should be asked. It is a relevant factor, but it is not the fundamental question here. The question is: what is just and right for relatives of sitting tenants at the moment? This is a quite different consideration.
All we have to prove—it can easily be done—is that the interests of the people to whom the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred will not be prejudiced by the passing of the Clause. Of course, they will not. Let us take the situation at its worst. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) very properly said, it is simply a matter of a choice between

continuing as tenant the son or daughter who is properly qualified and allowing another tenant to be brought in. At worst, it is a balance of convenience, and it seems to me that, at the very least, there is, or there ought to be, an overriding prejudice in favour of the relatives of the tenant who has given so much and spent so much over the years on improving the property.
We can take consolation in knowing that if the Clause goes through and a new tenant is installed under its provisions, the farm will still be tenanted, and there will still be tenant farmers. We can take satisfaction in that if we believe in tenant farmers as a valuable section of the agricultural community. If a farm falls vacant, the landlord may well say, "I shall pick from a wide pool of appropriate people to fill the tenancy". But we all know that tenants are being squeezed out by hard economic circumstances. I do not expect any landlord to be a paragon of virtue. I do not expect him to say that he will in his case set aside all the long-term economic trends which are leading to the squeeze and that he will prejudice his own financial interests by putting in another tenant. The reason why farms are going out is that it is economically sensible for landlords to do it, and it would be to ignore human nature to expect many landlords not to act in that way.
Hon. Members opposite who have read the hand-out on these provisions from the Landowners' Federation will remember its eloquent and accurate argument that it is much cheaper at the moment to rent a farm as a tenant than it would be to finance the capital to buy it, interest rates being so high. The almost automatic corollary of that, certainly in a very large number of cases, is that, if one has the asset and has a choice between selling it and using the money on the market or re-letting, it is on one's financial interest to sell.
It seems to me, therefore, that in a negative or, so to speak, static sort of way, the balance of advantage in the effect of the Clause will definitely tend to preserve and not diminish the stock of tenant farms.
The right hon. Member for Argyll argued that capital would not be invested


by the landlord. Again, it is self-evident that that argument can he used the other way. The intelligent, progressive, forward-looking tenant will be held back in his turn, if he has not got security of tenure, from putting in really permanent and adequate improvements for the proper farming of his land.
The argument boils down to this. On both sides of the House, we are legislating for a few hard cases. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said that hard cases make bad law. This is a legal saw, so to speak, drawn from the judicial interpretation of Statutes by the courts. It does not relate to the original preparation of Statutes in the House of Commons. But that is by the way. The basic point is that, even if there is only a handful of these cases, only one or two, we can accept the argument that the average landlord allows the relative of the tenant to succeed. That is all very fair. But, if that is the position generally, hon. Members cannot, in logic, go on to say that there will be a fundamental disruption of the general pattern of agricultural life as a result of the Clause.
Either the Clause will change the habits of landlords, in which case, on grounds of sheer social justice we need it, or it will not, in which case there are only a few bad landlords and it cannot be said that there will be great disruption. In my view, because of the fundamental importance of this principle for the people concerned, we ought to give the Clause enthusiastic endorsement.
We have heard a lot about whether the Scottish N.F.U. is for or against what the Government propose. In fact, there can be no argument about it. I took the trouble to consult the local Aberdeen-Kincardine branch—the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will agree, as he was present at the meeting—and I was left in no doubt that the Government's proposal was supported. This was subsequently confirmed by letter from the local branch and later by the N.F.U.
I can offer no personal reminiscences about the habits of individual factors on the death of a tenant, but I am sure that, even if there are only four or five people a year involved, a rare sprinkling of cases where a landlord abuses his legal rights and prerogatives, this Measure will still

be worthy of support by the House of Commons. I hope that it gets it.

Mr. Stodart: We have had a very balanced debate with very few exaggerations, and with views which seemed to be sincerely held on both sides of the House in direct conflict with one another. With one exception, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply, concerning a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), a fairly consistent point of view was expressed by hon. Members opposite.
In Committee, I said that I believed that the ruthless landlord is no more common than what I would describe as the bloody-minded tenant. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, the N.F.U. are in favour of the Clause. I am a member of the N.F.U., and, incidentally, not a member of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and therefore I hope that I can speak with reasonable dispassion. The N.F.U. did not ask for the provision; it asked that a competent son should be able to succeed, not a son, daughter, spouse or adopted son or daughter who is supposed to be only reasonably efficient. The N.F.U. has made no protest. Perhaps that would be asking too much, for if one asks for one course and is given three one does not usually refuse the other two. But I believe that the N.F.U. and many of its members will rue the day the legislation is passed.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Although the N.F.U. asked only for the son, the reason it did not ask for more was that it thought that it would not get it. It is delighted at having got much more than it expected.

Mr. Stodart: That is entering the realms of speculation.
I want to limit my arguments to one aspect of the question, the effect on the industry's efficiency, which is all that really matters. I very well appreciate the emotional upset for anyone who must leave a farm, because I have had to do it I shall not bore the House with the details. I was not the tenant, but I would merely say that pouring capital into buildings and stock is by no means the major thing. Farming is a very creative job, and one cannot farm for over a quarter of a century in one


farm, as I did, without becoming extremely devoted to it. I spent a miserable 18 months after I left it. Therefore I fully understand people's feelings when this happens.
The hon. Member for Inverness questioned what my right hon. Friend said about fixity as opposed to security. I think that security lies between a state in which one is at risk and somewhere where one has cast-iron certainty. I should have thought that if a tenant has his farm for life, because that is the present situation, if the lease runs out he can go on tacit relocation; he has his farm for life and his heir succeeds to the remainder of the lease. Nobody could say that that is not security. If it is to be said that a near relative shall succeed and that as the generations go on exactly the same thing will happen, I believe that that is no longer security but becomes fixity, although I accept that my view may not be shared.
What effect will the Clause have on the industry's efficiency? The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the difficulties of the industry over capital. What will happen in the sort of example, which I believe will be legion, in which a tenant has one son, or perhaps two, and a couple of daughters? The older son gets the farm, but the farmer may well say that he wants each of the others to have £2,000 or £3,000 apiece. Unless securities are available, and in many cases in farming they are not, the only place that that cash can come from is a bank overdraft.

8.15 p.m.

I am so certain that one of the terribly inhibiting factors in farming today is the lack of capital with which to develop that anything that will aggravate that lack is a step which we should not take on any but the gravest account. The Under-Secretary of State summed up his arguments in Committee by saying that his interest in the matter was the future of Scottish agriculture and the protection of the tenant farmer in Scotland. He thus totally ignored the part to be played by those who contribute long-term capital, which is indispensible to agriculture.

I do not believe hon. Members opposite when they say that the fact that tenants know that they will be able to

pass farms on to their sons will encourage them to invest long-term capital. It is not the function of the tenant to invest long-term capital, and very well he knows it. I do not believe that the Clause will effect such a revolution that the tenants in Scotland will begin to say that they can now put vast sums of capital, which they have not got, into long-term equipment.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the function of the tenant farmer to maximise his profit and those of the successive tenants, and that if investment capital will contribute he, like any other businessman, will be likely to invest it?

Mr. Stodart: Even if the Clause is passed and the present tenant can look down the long, long trail awinding to the second, third and fourth generations, I am certain that if the Advisory Service suggests that he would get much greater output by putting up a new hay shed or installing grain-drying equipment or something like that he will still say that that is part of the landlord's job.
On the whole, the landlord and tenant system works pretty well. I do not believe that the bad landlord is more common than tenants who will not make the best use of their farms. Certain faults on either side are not enough to justify very drastic interference with such a system.
The future of Scottish agriculture depends on its efficiency, on its readiness to accept new methods and to adapt to change. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put a fair question. Has efficiency increased or decreased since 1958?

Mr. Willis: We have had two periods in which we have had two systems. I would like to have had a comparison.

Mr. Stodart: I have sought far and wide for some sort of statistics which would give the answer, but I do not think they exist. I do not believe that one can isolate any particular aspect of the efficiency which has taken place thanks to new plants, new fertilisers, new equipment and so on. But I am convinced that, for farming to accept new methods and adapt itself to new changes, there must be a steady flow in—I do not say


a flood—of new blood, enough of a flow to bring in the pioneer. I myself am a bad pioneer and when I look over a pioneer's hedge to see what he is doing, if he is successful I follow his example next year. Without such pioneers coming in, farming would be in a very bad way.
The question has been put as to whether the Clause will help or hinder that flow. Before the Committee Stage started, I determined to make no effort to exaggerate the case and all I have ever said is that the Clause is certain to make entry more difficult. That, I believe, cannot be denied. Indeed, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland admitted to the fact.
I think that the giving of first refusal—and I think that I am interpreting the qualification Amendment correctly—to those who cannot be said not to be able to farm with reasonable efficiency in a sense bars the door a little and will narrow the gap through which new entrants can get in. When people say, "But the Land Court is there, so you can get a certificate for bad husbandry", I reply that this is extremely difficult to do. Farming has to be appallingly bad before one can get a certificate from the Land Court.
What concerns me is that we shall get just the words of that Amendment—" reasonably efficient "—which means, to me, going on in roughly the same way as farming is going at present. My right hon. Friend has been criticised for quoting the words of the English N.F.U. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a little from its observations as well. I shall quote them not because they are by the English N.F.U. but because this is an organisation whose views on any farming matter, no matter where it takes place, are of value. In that same paper it was stated:
The day has passed when the mere fact of having been raised on a farm gives one enough experience to manage it efficiently. The fact of having been born a farmer's son does not of itself provide the degree of managerial capacity, business acumen, practical application and sound judgment which the more exacting demands of modern farming require of successful farmers.
It goes on to make the point that it is extremely difficult to plead a special case now for having a pre-emption, as it were, by the son or any other relation of a farmer.

This matter was debated for 5 hours in Committee and we have had a good debate tonight, so the arguments have been well put. I say frankly, out of conviction and nothing else—no consideration of this Lobby or of that but solely out of conviction—that this Clause will not help Scottish farming to play its part as a major industry in future, to compete, as we have to, with places like New Zealand whose climatic conditions are vastly superior to ours and to get our wages up so that they are equivalent to those which can be earned in the town. This is a stupendous task and it is because this new Clause fails to meet it that I hope I have managed to convince my hon. Friends that we should vote against it.

Mr. Buchan: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has convinced his hon. Friends that they should vote against this Clause. The problem faced by the Opposition is whether they can convince the farmers of Scotland that they are right in voting against it. I feel rather sorry for hon. Members opposite. The debate tonight has been much less vigorous than the debate in Committee on this subject. I suspect that this is because our debate here is more likely to be seen by the public gaze.
Of course, I accept the honesty and sincerity of the hon. Gentleman. We have known each other a long time throughout the proceedings on this Bill. But I think he is wrong in his view because he is suffering from the deeply engrained illusion, as are his hon. Friends—I do not accuse him of hypocrisy—that a landlord cannot make a bad choice, that for some reason his choice must be correct. An example was given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who is a great fount of wisdom in agricultural matters. He quoted from a newspaper and gave an example of a farm being sold regardless of who bought it. It was more than likely that the son of the deceased farmer knew the farm and could have farmed it better than the man who had most money at the auction.

8.30 p.m.

Hon. Members opposite have asked whether our proposal will increase efficiency. I have been asked to prove that


it will on the basis of the increase in efficiency between 1949 and 1958 and between 1958 and now. But hon. Members themselves answered their own question. It is not possible to disentangle any single factor and to say that, for instance, because there was security of tenure between 1949 and 1958, there was more or less efficiency, any more than we can disentangle a particular lime subsidy and analyse its effects one way or the other. If we could exactly predict what kind of input would produce what output in agriculture, some of our problems in the Annual Price Review would be solved.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there could be no sillier method of testing the efficiency of a farmer than having a sale?

Mr. Buchan: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
The question is whether the capital investment and the consciousness of continuation which comes when a farmer knows that his son is to inherit will outweigh the apparent loss of capital which hon. Members opposite fear if we remove the landlord-tenant relationship in a certain number of cases. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) defined fixity as being the position midway between being at risk and having cast iron security. He suggested that what we were giving was cast iron certainty, but it is nothing of the kind, for this proposal is to be subject to a number of provisions.
For instance, there is that dealing with the relative hardship of the landlord and tenant, the provision dealing with the agricultural training and experience of the tenant—

Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Hawkinsrose—

Mr. Buchan: I was very generous in giving way to the hon. Member in Committee.

Mr. Hawkins: This is a new point. Will the Amendment dealing with qualifications include a consideration of whether there are sufficient capital resources?

Mr. Buchan: I have already analysed this. One consideration must be whether the efficiency resulting from capital investment by the tenant will outweigh the

efficiency resulting from capital investment by the landlord, but the number of farms coming up for letting will not be reduced. What we are saying is that sometimes the choice should be of the son or a near relative rather than an outsider, but there is no loss in the sense of the number of new entrants. Hon. Members opposite have spoken about a flood of applications for tenancies, but in many cases it will be sons of deceased tenants who will make up the flood. Our proposals will not reduce the number of farms available, but merely give security to the descendants of farmers and remove the possibility of the kind of thing which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire described.
I shall not deal with every argument, for my hon. Friends have crushed the general terms of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. However, there are one or two specific matters with which I should deal. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke of a farmer who was the tenant of the Secretary of State for Scotland, than whom there is no better landlord. He asked what his position was under the present law. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not know this case, but I have a hunch that it is not the simple proposition which the hon. Gentleman suggested. I take it that it concerns the assignation of the lease to the son before the death of the farmer and is not a request to name the son as a successor. This demonstrates that the hon. Gentleman should vote against the Amendment, because under our proposals security would be given if the son fulfilled the conditions about amalgamations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Buchanan-Smithrose—

Mr. Buchan: I shall not give way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not understand my argument.

Mr. Buchan: I think that I do. I took the point exactly. The hon. Gentleman asked what the position would be if his constituent applied for his son to be his successor. The Secretary of State would be bound by these proposals as much as would any other landlord. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular matter to raise about a particular constituent, I


hope that he will write to me. He knows that I will give it, as always, my fullest consideration.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry. In that case the hon. Gentleman should have put it better. It has been completely answered.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked whether a cattle stealer could become a tenant, especially if he had stolen cattle from landlords in the area. This was the point. I want to be sure that I have got the point in case I am accused of giving a wrong answer. In that case, as my right hon. Friend said, the landlord could object to him as a tenant. My right hon. Friend said that, and there were shouts of "No but my right hon. Friend was correct, according to the 1949 Act. If it was found that there were reasonable grounds for objection to the successor he would be dispossessed.
The other points raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) dealt with entry to the industry. He put this better than most. There is a need to bring into the industry people with agricultural training. I doubt whether the number of agricultural tenants, for example obtaining tenancies to farms, will be affected to any great extent. In a few cases we will be changing the type of person who will be getting particular tenancies. This is a different matter.
It has been suggested that we are dealing with only a few hard cases. It has been said that hard cases can produce bad law but that is not always so. Hard cases may make good law, as a result

of the arousing of social conscience. This is what is happening in these circumstances. While we have been accused of rushing this through too quickly, I know that later this evening some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be criticising us, saying that people have been suffering because we have not rushed things quickly enough.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) sent me a letter which arrived on my desk this morning raising the question of a constituent, asking whether she will be covered by the new legislation.

Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman sees fit to reveal correspondence before he has even discussed it with me, he will also take the point that I put this question to him in perfectly good faith, despite the fact that I do not support the proposals before the House, as my constituent knows. She came to me as her Member of Parliament, and I have dealt with the matter quite rightly and openly. The hon. Member has no business to make reference to the correspondence like that.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know why hon. Members are getting angry. I have made no suggestion that the hon. Member supported these proposals. He has made it quite clear that he did not in his letter. I thought that I was being considerate to him, but when I try to help I get clobbered. I have covered all the points raised. The Amendment must be rejected.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 205.

Kirk, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stodart, Anthony


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John (Hal[...]am)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peel, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tem'th, Langttone)
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Loveys, W. H
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vickers, Dame Joan


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, J. M. L
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Ward, Dame Irene


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Weatherill, Bernard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Webster, David


May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Royle, Anthony
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


More, Jasper
Sharpies, Richard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Silvester, Frederick
Younger, Hn. George


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George



Neave, Airey
Smith, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Hector Munro and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Archer, Peter
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Garrett, W. E
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bence, Cyril
Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Manuel, Archie


Bessell, Peter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mapp, Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth


Blackburn, F
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marquand, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.


Boardman, H
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J
Millan, Bruce


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Hamilton,, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brooks, Edwin
Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison., Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold


Buchan, Norman
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooley, Frank
Norwood, Christopher


Cant, R. B
Hooson, Emlyn
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Homer, John
Ogden, Eric


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Chapman, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cronin, John
Hynd, John
Park, Trevor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Randall, Harry


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lubbock, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton, N.E.)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Slater, Joseph
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wilton, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Small, William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncader)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Swain, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates Victor


Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Eric G. Varley.


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 16, line 11, after ' subsection ', insert:

(a) if they are satisfied that the near relative has neither sufficient training in agriculture nor sufficient experience in the farming of land to enable him to farm the holding to which the notice relates with reasonable efficiency, and if it is stated in the notice that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid, or
(b).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 24, 29, 30 and 32.

Mr. Ross: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Clause was discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary undertook to consider whether we should insert some qualification to limit a little further the class of successor to be protected against being given an incontestable notice to quit under Section 6 of the Agriculture Act, 1958.
It was pointed out that under our proposals as they stood, a near relative who succeeded to a holding might have no relevant agricultural experience, and it was suggested that we should apply some precise test, such as that he had worked for a number of years on a substantial holding or taken an approved course in agriculture. My hon. Friend discussed this question with me, but I thought that it was a little rigid. Experience on some other farm may be just as valuable, and it would be difficult to make out an exhaustive list of appropriate courses of training.
What, therefore, we are seeking to do in the Amendment is to ensure that a near relative shall not succeed to the holding if he or she has neither sufficient training in agriculture nor sufficient experience in the farming of land to enable him, or her, to farm the holding concerned with reasonable efficiency. Hon. Members will note that we have related this to the specific holding to which the notice to quit relates, so that experience on a small farm would not necessarily qualify

the successor to take over a much larger holding for which quite different experience might be required.
I think that we have proposed a reasonably flexible provision which will ensure that a landlord may obtain possession of a farm if a tenant who has inherited it has neither the experience nor the agricultural training to enable him to run it. We have made this alternative provision so that the successor must be qualified either by experience or by training. On the first case, the successor may have adequate experience, although he has had no formal training, which may indeed not be at all necessary to run a smallish farm. The reference to Auchincruive and the rest can be overdone. It cannot always be balanced against practical experience and we should not discount practical experience. On the second case, we cover a successor who has taken a course in agriculture but has, perhaps because of his father's early death, not had the opportunity of farming for any length of time.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is a fairly sensible provision. It adds a further ground on which the landlord may seek the consent of the Land Court to a notice to quit to a near relation who succeeds to a holding. If the tenant contests the notice, it will be for the Land Court to decide whether the tenant has neither the agricultural training nor the agricultural experience which would have enabled him to farm the holding with reasonable efficiency. I commend the Amendment to the House.
The other Amendments are consequential. In view of the time, I hope that the House will accept my assurance on that so that I should not have to go into further detail on them.

Mr. Stodart: This is better than nothing, but I cannot bring myself to enthuse about this qualification. I accept that the Amendment which we drafted in Committee probably went to the extreme of rigidity. We specified a


number of years on a farm. I remember that in moving the Amendment I made it clear that we would have no objection if the Government chose to amend our suggestion to take in another farm of a similar kind.
Although the Secretary of State has used the word with which we associate his right hon. Friend, "flexibility", which he is always urging on us, it will be extremely difficult to determine with any consistency what is meant by "sufficient training" or "sufficient experience" and what the norm of "reasonable efficiency" will be This could change enormously with each successor to the chair of the Land Court. People could have very different views. We might get into the same sort of difficulties as we had with the marginal agricultural production grant, which we improved with the winter keep scheme, by going all out to get a uniform standard throughout Scotland.
I can see considerable difficulties arising in assessing "reasonable efficiency" in different areas. "Reasonable efficiency" in the lowlands is very different from "reasonable efficiency" in a hard hill area. I should have thought that the Government's proposal went to the other extreme. However, I share the Secretary of State's view that we have had a fairly long run on this. The Amendment modifies the Clause to a certain extent. I accept that all the other Amendments are consequential.
The only thing which I confess I am baffled about—and I hope that the Secretary of State will explain it—is the reference in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 30 to
the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(1) to (iii)".
As I understand it, paragraph (b)(i) to (iii) is supposed to be in Clause 18. It certainly has a paragraph (b), but it has no (i) to (iii). I have been trying to see what has gone wrong. There was a previous reference to this matter, and I could not then make out what 18(b)(i) to (iii) referred to. This may be a drafting error, but I should be obliged if the Secretary of State could give an answer to this point.

Mr. Hawkins: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question about the

Clause and Amendment. I think it is important. When we were talking about this in Committee we were concerned lest the tenancy might be left to somebody who had no farming experience whatever, but there is one grave omission here. It does not appear that the successor has to have sufficient capital to work the farm. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is appreciating the point.

Mr. Ross: Yes.

Mr. Hawkins: I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by this Amendment the tribunal will be able to take into account whether the farmer has sufficient capital with which to run the holding. I believe it is important. I myself have sat for a number of years on a smallholdings committee where we choose tenants for smallholdings, small farms. We believe it is essential that the tenants should have sufficient capital as well as know-how and knowledge of how to farm the land. I shall be very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply on this point.

Mr. Ross: I noted the point, which the hon. Gentleman made in Committee more than once. I did not think it would be right to put this specifically into the guidance we shall give to the Land Court.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is that there are no sub-paragraphs (b)(i) to (iii) in the relevant subsection, that is Clause 18(2), but in addition to for paragraphs (a), (b), (c), we are introducing a new paragraph (a) by this Amendment, No. 23, which also has a reference to paragraph (b) and the paragraphs (a), (b), (c) in the subsection will become (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (b). The hon. Gentleman was right in thinking that this might be drafting. It is for drafting reasons that those paragraphs now become (b)(i) to (iii).

Mr. Stodart: I must impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the hours of difficulty I have experienced in trying to understand what this means.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member intervening only? Because if not he must have the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Stodart: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By leave of the House, may I just say that I have somewhat tender thoughts of what might have happened to me if I had been sitting in the right hon. Gentleman's place and putting in "paragraph (b)(i) to (iii)" and of the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman to that. He would probably have noticed the point more quickly than I did, and also detained us very much longer than I intend to detain the House now. I am grateful to him for his explanation. This is drafting, and there is no sinister reason for that Amendment, and I am perfectly prepared to allow the right hon. Gentleman to have it.

Mr. Ross: I apologise for giving the hon. Gentleman those hours of perplexity. He is right: I probably should have spotted the point. Indeed, I remember spotting something not dissimilar on a Bill in 1958 and demanding an explanation from the then Lord Advocate. But would not it have been very much better if the hon. Gentleman had come and asked the Scottish Office?

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 39, at end insert:
' on the grounds mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section '.—[Mr. Ross]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 17, line 14, after ' daughter ', insert or adopted son or daughter '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take with it Amendment No. 26.

Mr. Buchan: When the Bill was in Committee, this is another point that I undertook to look at again, and it concerns the definition of "near relative" in subsection (7) of the Clause. Hon. Members wanted to make sure that it would cover adopted children. At the time, we meant to cover them and thought that we had done so. However, a second look has shown that we, too, are in some doubt about the position.
Section 23 of the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964, provides that the adopted child

is treated as the child of the adopter for the purposes of succession and the disposal of property. An adopted son or daughter may, therefore, succeed to a holding. The first of the two Amendments provides that he or she shall have the same protection under these Clauses as other near relatives of a deceased tenant. So we have taken care of that point.
The second Amendment is purely consequential and provides the necessary legal definition of the phrase "adopted son or daughter", and it does it by reference to the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act under which the rights of succession are conferred on adopted children.

Mr. Stodart: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman gave us the definite impression that the use of the words "son or daughter" included an adopted son or daughter. We accepted his explanation. However, this Amendment widens the field considerably. We now have an entirely different situation in that something which we suspected was covered by the Act was not covered at all. We are now faced with the widening of the range of near relations in a way that we had no reason to suspect. I have always maintained that this should be as narrow a range as possible. We now have a situation where a near relative will include not only a spouse, a son and a daughter, but someone else who could be adopted, provided that he or she is under 21.
It seems to me that that is going far beyond what we were prepared unwillingly to accept. It no longer means that a holding is necessarily being kept in the family. Presumably it would not be impossible for a tenant with no family, who was one of the small minority of bloody-minded tenants, to decide to ditch the landlord by adopting someone to perpetuate his tenancy. If that is the case, I have no hesitation in saying that we take great exception to it and will wish to register our protest in the Lobby

Mr. Maclennan: Within the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) there is something of a contradiction. He led us to believe that he had understood originally from the wording of the Act that "son or daughter" included an adopted son or daughter, and he did not


register any protest in Committee about that understanding.

Mr. Stodart: Of course we protested in Committee against the whole concept, but we were assured that it made no difference and that, whether we liked it or not, a son included an adopted son. We realised that, if that were true, there was nothing we could say. That is very different from having the position forced upon us.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has not really met the point. The Amendment does not widen the scope of the Bill as he originally conceived it; it clarifies the intention.

Mr. MacArthur: I would be grateful for more information from the Government on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I am sure that the spirit behind the Amendment is acceptable if, in the Clause as it stands, the House decides that the adopted son or daughter of a tenant should succeed to the tenancy on his death. It is reasonable that a son or daughter genuinely adopted by the family and living in the same relationship with the tenant as a blood son or blood daughter should have the same standing in the family and in the eyes of the law as a blood son or blood daughter. To that extent the spirit of the Amendment is acceptable, although I still believe that the broadening of the succession to include daughters as well as sons is questionable.
I am concerned at the possibility, if only a theoretical one, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West has described, namely, that a bloody-minded tenant might, to ensure the continuation of the farm beyond his death within a remoter branch of his own family, for example, provide artificially, as it were, for the adoption of a relative under 21 years of age to secure for that adopted child the succession which would otherwise be denied him.
This may be far-fetched, but I suggest that it is a real point. It is important that the Clause should be precise on this point. If there is room for a distortion of the spirit behind the Amendment, the Government would be well advised to produce a further Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. Godber: I had not intended to intervene on this point, because we have had long debates on the Scottish Amendments. However, we must understand a little more clearly what the Under-Secretary has said before deciding what we should do.
Much as we on this side deplore the general line set out in Clauses 18 to 20, nevertheless, if it were felt only fair that an adopted son or daughter, meaning somebody equivalent to a close relation and having been adopted at a very early age, should be entitled to succession, we can understand that there might be a case in relation to the Clause. But if the position is as I understand it to have been announced, that in fact a tenant could adopt somebody at a very late stage for the purpose of enabling him to dictate in what way the holding should be left, that would be a very serious and damaging widening of the whole effect.
I ask the Secretary of State either to give us a clear indication about this or to undertake to have another look at it between now and its going to another place. If there is a widening, we would take that as a serious step which must be resisted. If he can assure us that it would be limited to someone adopted at a very tender age, we would acknowledge that he had a case for doing this. However, we would not be willing to allow it to go forward in the form in which we now understand it without registering our protest against it.

Mr. Ross: I wish that this point had been brought out when we discussed the matter in Committee, because there has been a considerable change of attitude about it. For quite some time it has been a generally accepted principle of law that an adopted child is treated for certain purposes in the same way as a natural child of the parents.
One of the most important Bills relating to succession is the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964, in which this provision was specifically made in respect of an adopted child. He was given the same status as the son or daughter of the family, and I would be loth to depart from that principle in relation to a hypothetical and very theoretical likelihood, bearing in mind that there are other conditions in respect of which the notice to quit can be applied.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked whether the adopted child was covered. Having read the Committee proceedings, I thought that they wanted the adopted child to be covered, but now I gather that they do not. I regret this, because it runs counter to the much more enlightened attitude which has been in evidence in the application of Scottish law, and in relation to other children for whom provision is being made in the Law Reform Bill, the principle of which was given an unopposed Second Reading in the Scottish Committee. I suggest that we rest on this.
If there is something unreasonable in respect of an applicant to which objection is taken by the landowner, it may well be that the land court will have a discretion. I would not like to be dogmatic about this now, but I think that we are dealing with figments of the imagination when it is thought that for the purpose of getting round the law this kind of device will be used by people in Scotland.
Those who are most vociferously denying what I am saying are hon. Members from the agricultural areas of England. They may have special knowledge of the attributes and practices of English tenant farmers who wish to circumvent the will of the House of Commons, but I think that the Opposition are drawing pretty long bows when they read this possibility into the provision. I am prepared to look at anything to see whether there is a reasonable possibility of this happening, but for the moment I am satisfied that what we have done meets the wishes of the Committee, that we should ensure that the adopted child is covered.

Mr. MacArthur: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the spirit of the Amendment, and my objection, would be met if, at a later stage, the adoption were to relate to the adoption of the son or daughter in infancy?

Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Hawkinsrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has spoken once, and has, therefore, exhausted his right to speak again.

Mr. Hawkins: No, I have not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hawkins: I agree with what has been said about an adopted child, but this is not a figment of the imagination. One can visualise an elderly tenant adopting a man of middle age for the payment of a sum of money. I do not think that this can be regarded as a figment of the imagination. There is no reason why the tenancy should not be saleable in this way by the adoption of somebody. This should not be written in, because it could lead to abuse.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: May I, with leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should say that Mr. Speaker has deprecated an excessive use of second speeches, although, if the hon. Gentleman claims the leave of the House, I must put it to the House.

Mr. Stodart: I promise to be extremely brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I would be the first to agree that it is not likely to arise often, but there could be a case in which a tenant had a flaming row with his landlord and was prepared to do this to ditch the landlord. We would accept my hon. Friend's proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider this before a later stage, we would be content. If he ruled out this possibility because it was a figment of the imagination, we would be obliged to vote against the proposal.

Mr. Russell Johnston: This seems rather far-fetched, the idea conjured up by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South West (Mr. Hawkins), of a fairly old tenant virtually selling his concessions by adopting a middle-aged man. Even if this were possible, surely the landlord would be able to take the matter to the courts. Is that no so?

Mr. Ross: I should be very surprised, as I said, if the Land Court of Scotland, hardheaded as its members are, could not see through this. What we thought we had covered—from studying the Committee proceedings and talking to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I thought that this was what the Opposition wanted—was the position of the adopted child under the general succession law of Scotland. The Amendment was designed to ensure this. I am surprised that this argument has been put to us.
It would be easy for me to say that I will look at it again. I always look at these things again, but I would be wrong to lead the hon. Gentleman to think that I should race to make some change—this is the proposal—in the law of succession in Scotland. One cannot do that in one

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[9.19 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allen, Scholefield
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Neal, Harold


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Newens, Stan


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Armstrong, Emest
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Norwood, Christopher


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ogden, Eric


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Orbach, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Bessell, Peter
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bishop, E. S.
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blackburn, F.
Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Boardman, H.
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, Trevor


Boston, Terence
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Huckfield, Leslie
Portland, Norman


Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp;F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp;Spenb'gh)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Nell
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Randall, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul


Cronin, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson. James (Aberdeenshire. W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swain, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp;Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ferny hough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mapp, Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, J. J.
Yates, Victor


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce



Fowler, Gerry
Milne, Edward (B[...]yth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Eric G. Varley.


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Act and not in others. If the hon. Gentleman wants to vote against the adopted child getting these rights, we had better end in that way.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 107.

NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eidon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bakar, W. H. K.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Balniel, Lord
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Campbell, Gordon
Jopling, Michael
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor. Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Currie, G. B H.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langslor.e)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Loveys, W. H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gil[...]our, Ian (Norfolk, c.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gil[...]our, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Further Amendment mad: No. 26, in page 17, line 14, at end insert:
(8) In the last foregoing subsection, the reference to an adopted son or daughter of a deceased tenant shall be construed as a reference to a son or daughter adopted by him (whether lone or jointly with any other person) in pursuance of an adoption order within the meaning of section 23(5) of the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964.—[Mr. Ross]

Clause 19.

(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART III)

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 19, leave out ' between 26th January 1968 and ' and insert ' before '.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was right to emphasise in Standing Committee that the prime justification for this measure to limit the incontestable right of a landlord to serve notice to quit was that without it, without this restoration of the position, a number of individuals, however few, might suffer immensely. The purpose of the Amendment is to protect a few individuals—one of them is well know to the House as a result of the debate tonight—on whom

notice to quit was already served before 26th January, 1968, the date laid down ill the Bill after which it shall be possible to challenge the landlord's notice to quit.

9.30 p.m.

The date chosen is arbitrary in a sense. It is the date on which the Clause was published, and I suppose that in theory notice was then given to landlords and tenants alike that their positions would be affected if the Bill became law. Presumably that is the theory behind the choice of 26th January, but in fact the Government's intentions on the matter were known for some time before. On 4th December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in the House that the Government intended to restore broadly the position that had prevailed before the 1958 Act. He thus gave notice to landlords throughout Scotland that their interests would be affected. From that moment it became possible for a proprietor to serve notice to quit on the tenant. For all I know—and I have no evidence at all on this point—a number of notices were served between 4th December, when the Government's intentions were firmly, stated and 26th January.

One can take the matter back even before 4th December and argue that


frequent Answers by Ministers on the subject made it clear that the Government intended to move, and that the operation was being held up only by the consultations under way with the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union, among others.

The choice of 26th January is rather arbitrary, and if one is to restore the position to benefit those few individuals who have suffered—we are all agreed that they are a few—it would be wiser in logic simply to accept the Amendment and provide that where a notice to quit has been served before the Act, but will become operative after its passage, it will be possible to contest it. That is the Amendment's purpose in brief.

I admit that I am asking the House to accept a retrospective principle, and I do so in the full knowledge of what that signifies. It is not capable of argument that the House never passes retrospective legislation. It has been passed on a number of occasions, but the general principle is that so far as possible it is preferable not to do so. It would be wholly repugnant in criminal legislation, but this is an entirely different situation. The views commonly held on retrospective legislation were perhaps most classically enunciated some time ago in the case of Phillips v. Eyre, in which it was said:
Retrospective laws areprima facie of questionable policy and contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried out upon the faith of the existing law.

While that is true, it is also true that Acts are frequently passed which affect the private contractual relations between individuals and, indeed, the law takes cognisance of this in the doctrine of supervening impossibility and the consequent frustration of the contract. This is not, therefore, such an abhorrent situation as might be suggested.

I suggest that here we have to weigh very carefully the interests of the individuals who will be affected and that we should not give support to the Amendment or vote against it on the ground that it involves a principle which is itself abhorrent. If we weigh up the interests of those involved, there is no doubt on which side the balance falls.

In the case of the farmer who has been deprived in prospect of a tenancy, there is always the possibility of finding another. But in the case of the man who has perhaps been fanning his land for 15 years, there is a very different situation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) earlier rightly drew our attention to the wrench involved in being uprooted from one's farm, whatever the reason. I think that he will agree that there can be no comparison between the interest of the individual who is being deprived of his tenancy and the interest of the prospective tenant—the third party to the contract, as it were.

I move this Amendment with the very narrow purpose of assisting those few well-known individuals on whom notices to quit have already been served, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. David Steel: I am pleased to be able to support the Amendment which, if accepted, would have the effect of conferring the same security of tenure for near relatives to which we have agreed in principle on those who at present are under notice to quit. The only argument which could even be laid against this in equity is that it involves some aspect of retrospective legislation.
I have a clear conscience on this matter. [Interruption] I will explain this to members of the Tory Party who pursued their doctrine to the absurdity we saw in the last Division. I had this provision in my election addresses for the General Election and for the by-election before it. I said that, if elected. this was one of the measures I would press for. None of my constituents was in doubt as to the effect of returning me, and that is my position. But I accept that it is only an individual position.
Nevertheless, having had strong representations from tenant farmers in my constituency before the last election on this issue, having talked to farmers about this and having included reference to it in my election addresses, I feel justified in giving support to the Amendment on a personal basis.
There is another question. Why should these particular people who are at the moment under notice to quit suffer from


what is simply the dilatory nature of Government? There is no doubt that if the Government are correct in restoring a measure of security of tenure to near relatives, it was correct to do so a year or two ago. A couple of years ago I asked a Question about this subject and had a sympathetic reply, indicating that the Government were broadly in favour, but saying that they preferred to wait until there was more comprehensive agricultural legislation. I think that they were mistaken, but that is what they did, and because they delayed bringing in this legislation, a few people in Scotland will not obtain its benefits.
In equity, that is neither just nor fair. If it is right to change the law and to give this measure of security of tenure to near relatives, I do not see why we should not give it as of now and prevent people from suffering from what will have been the old law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's argument will have persuaded the Under-Secretary. I know him to be a reasonable man who is open to persuasion at this time. However, if he does not accept the argument, I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not prove to be a paper tiger, but will press the Amendment to a Division. If he does, he will have our support.

Mr. Dewar: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on moving the Amendment. When the issue was raised in Committee, it met with a very dusty reception. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was certainly sympathetic, but, for reasons which I can understand, did not feel able to be co-operative. From the Conservative benches, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) magisterially rebuked by implication anyone who suggested anything so risky as retrospective legislation. With rather Victorian dignity, he said that the Opposition could not countenance it on any terms.
I believe that the instinctive reaction to any measure which has any taint of retrospection about it is all too hasty and all too stereotyped. We are too anxious to regard it as something which is a sin against the true gospel, against the true constitution. Although I agree that recourse to general retrospective legislation can be extremely dangerous and can lead

to a great deal of individual injustice, it should not preclude careful consideration of any individual case, or any individual set of cases.
Tonight in the House, as in Committee, we have had exhaustive debates about measures which will give security of tenure to close relatives of farmers. The House has accepted that this is a valid measure, presumably on the ground that it accepts the case for it in equity and justice. We are now examining the transitional provisions. The very fact that the Government have included transitional provisions shows that they accept that there must be serious borderline cases of people in the twilight area between the bad old days, when they were completely unprotected, and the new and more just days when protection will be adequate and fair.
I accept the view of my hon. Friend that there is an enormous distinction between retrospective legislation for criminal activities and retrospective legislation for civil activities. It would obviously be unfair in the first, but it is not such an open and shut case in the second. Let us consider the provisional arrangements which have the sanction of the Government and of the Opposition. We are to have an arbitrary date of 26th January, which can be justified only because that was the date on which the Clauses appeared. It is possible to argue that this makes a big difference, because it must be assumed that everyone knew about these Clauses from the time they were published. But this is surely taking the doctrine of constructive knowledge to ridiculous lengths.
I call in evidence something which was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) earlier this evening about Clause 14 when he moved an Amendment to meet exactly a similar kind of circumstance in terms of the general principle, an Amendment which the Government accepted. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not likely to be an object of everyday reading for many farmers in Scotland, and it would he unfair for farmers to be victimised because of sheer, but perfectly natural, ignorance. He went on to quote theScottish Law Timesin his support, asking whether it was negligent not to know. His answer clearly was—and, as his Amendment was accepted by the


Government, this must be their answer, too—that it was not negligent not to know.

9.45 p.m.

It is unreasonable to except people to have this constructive knowledge in between the period in which the Bill was put before the House, was printed, and the time that it reaches the Statute Book. If the hon. Member applies that argument in that case and finds it acceptable, I would be interested to hear the distinction drawn as to why it is right to say that we must assume that people know about it between 26th January, when these Clauses were put down, and the time that the Bill actually reached the Statute Book.

If it is accepted that it is unreasonable to assume that people know that, then the arbitrary date disappears completely. It is only fair that one should go for the neat, obvious and just solution, that a notice to quit which has been issued but which has not become effective by the time that the Bill reaches the Statute Book should be covered by the transitional arrangements.

The other big argument used in Committee—and, no doubt, we shall hear it again later if a Conservative Member designs to come forward to comment on this Clause—was that there may have been sales made before 26th January, when one assumes that everyone suddenly became aware of the possibility of this Clause becoming law, but which had not yet come into effect, and which were based upon giving vacant possession. It was said that the position would be disrupted and there would be unfortunate consequences to the parties to the sale.

If one looks at the law of Scotland, the law of contract, there is plenty of evidence and I have only to refer the House to Gloag and Henderson's tome of the Law of Scotland to demonstrate this. It will be seen on page 103 that it says:
If a change in the law renders performance impossible the result is to dissolve the contract.

It goes on to quote a series of cases of which Mackeson v. Boyd and Tay Salmon Fisheries v. Speedie are possibly the best known in circumstances like this, to prove that no damages lie. So the

landlord, if there is a case falling into this transitional period, which is justification for refusing to accept this Amendment, cannot be victimised because no damages lie against him. The only person who could be caught is the potential purchaser.

Let us look to see what he can have lost. He has lost only the "looking time" between the period in which he thought that he had concluded a bargain for a farm with vacant possession, and the time that it became clear, presumably 26th January, and absolutely legal fact, the day the Bill reaches the Statute Book, that his contract had dissolved and he had no bargain. It may be that he has suffered some inconvenience and he may have lost two or three months when he might have been looking for another farm, but it is not fair to say that it is anything like the inconvenience that will lie against the tenant farmer in this situation, who will be thrown off his land irretrievably, with no redress because he has not been given the cover supplied by these transitional arrangements.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to look at this matter extremely sympathetically. I know that it is difficult and I know that any Minister will fight shy of anything that looks like retrospective legislation. In Committee the Under-Secretary said, of retrospective legislation:
… it can be argued that to make illegal and improper an action which was not illegal or improper when it was undertaken would be a very difficult proposition to sustain in law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 8th February, 1968; c. 652.]

I am absolutely sure that is right. I was glad to note that he said that it would be very difficult; he did not say that it would be impossible. While it may be difficult to sustain it in law, our case is that it is very easy indeed to sustain such a move in terms of justice and fairness, and I hope that he will not be entirely deaf to these particular cases.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The simple fact is that on this matter the Government have delayed for far too long and that if they had not delayed for so long, there would be no need for the Amendment.
Away back in 1965, only six months after I came into the House, I put down a Written Question to the Secretary of


State concerning security of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I do not at present have it in mind to make any changes in the existing law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 72]
Yet it was not a new controversy. It had gone on for a very long time.
Two years after the Secretary of State replied to my Written Question, however, the following notice to quit was sent—by recorded delivery, naturally—was sent to a farmer, Sandy Matheson, in Elrig in my constituency.
You are required to remove from all and Whole the farms and lands of Elrig …and the buildings and other erections thereon at the term of Martinmas (28th November, 1968).
It states at the end:
The above notice follows upon your intimation dated 8th March, 1967, that by designation dated 8th March, 1967, by the executrix dative of the said late Angus Matheson, you acquired the tenant's interest under said lease, but is without prejudice to the landlord's pleas against the validity of that designation.
The tenant will go out in. November this year unless something can be done about it.
I know the argument which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) rehearsed about retrospective legislation. I have been in correspondence with the Minister about it. As he knows, I sought to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule, but I have not proceeded further with it for the simple reason that its purpose has been taken up in these proposals. I had intended, however, that the Bill would not only contain a repeal of the necessary Section of the 1958 Act, but would also have a retrospective element.
The Minister does not like retrospection. In many ways, none of us likes it. Both the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South have touched upon it. In a letter of 11th January, after saying in general that the House did not like retrospective legislation, the Minister said to me:
There is also …the more practical difficulty that where a landlord has already given a notice to quit in good faith under the present law he may have entered into contractual commitments with a third party, or himself incurred expenditure on the assumption that he will have vacant possession of the holding in due course.

I admit that a certain degree of difficulty could be created and that one would not wish injustice to be done on either side—although certain people seem to be concerned with only one side. I am anxious that there should not be injustice on either side. Leaving aside, however, the more legalistic approach, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is much more fitted to take than I, it should not be altogether out with the wit of man to devise a form of wording which would, perhaps, allow those who are presently under notice to quit to serve a counter-notice and to have their case brought before the Land Court. That should be quite feasible.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not rise or fall by the precise way which is suggested in the Amendment. But we want something done. We want more than the empty promises which have been given for a very long time. Therefore, we want something categoric from the Minister.
We are dealing with individual cases. It is said that hard cases make bad law. I do not believe that they do. We are dealing with cases which are hard cases because the Government have been too slow in doing something about it. Therefore, they have a bounden duty to do something now. The Minister can tell us that when the Bill goes to another place, the Government will seek to do something about it. I would like to hear him say so.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite will know that I discuss this matter with a certain difficulty because I understand, perhaps with even more depth than some hon. Members who are involved here tonight, the case in question. I have met the individual involved together with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). Many people have seen details of the case.
There is a difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness in not accepting that hard cases necessarily make bad law. The whole of human history consists of good law being created out of unfortunate cases. Frequently, however, the unfortunate cases have not been saved by the good law that came afterwards.


I used the word "difficult" in Committee, and I stick to it. I do not say that it is impossible to have retrospective legislation, but that it should operate only in the most abnormal and difficult circumstances.
It may be argued that the case mentioned and similar cases are in this category. I am not sure. For example, I do not follow the argument that this Amendment is analogous to Amendment No. 14. The initial date is specified here, and in some way we have brought in an element of technical retrospection thereby.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that we are grateful to him not only because the Clause has been brought in but also for what he has described as an element of retrospection. It may be that Amendment No. 14 is not analogous in terms of content but only in terms of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Does not my hon. Friend accept that?

Mr. Buchan: I cannot accept responsibility for the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that there is an element of retrospection here. On one or two occasions tonight I felt that it was thought that we were doing nothing. The hon. Member for Inverness might have given us a little more credit for what we have done. The N.F.U. was pleased that we did not eventually stick to the decision to await agricultural holdings legislation, but put the provision into this Bill. I had hoped that this might have been recognised.
I cannot accept the Amendment. I would prefer that my hon. Friend asked leave to withdraw it, for various reasons. It would be a pity if it were to be assumed that there was a division between hon. Members in respect of certain cases. I would prefer my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but if he will not I must ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
The argument has been raised that there is a possibility of third party involvement. I do not agree that the situations postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) are likely to occur. There are many other possible situations, which I would prefer not to go into.
I remember the trial scene in the "Merchant of Venice", in which Portia, for part of the scene, at any rate, goes most of the way with the arguments of Shylock and says that not even to do a great right should we do a little wrong, because
many an error, by the same example, will rush into the state…
We must be careful, even with an issue like this which affects people in the way which has been described. We must not go against the principal of no retrospection except in the gravest circumstances.
Having said that, I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that all those who are involved in this situation—whether on the landlord or the tenant side—will take note of the views that have been expressed without question and without opposition in the House this evening in relation to these cases, in order to see whether a more amicable solution may be found privately, in a way that has not been postulated.

Mr. James Davidson: I support the Amendment. I want to convince the Minister that there is not one individual or event one or two individuals involved quite a lot of people are involved. There is a widow in my constituency who has farmed a holding in the parish of Kincardine O'Neil for many years. It is now farmed—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned

Ordered
That the Proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made

Mr. Davidson: The farm is now very efficiently run by her son. There is no question of the property being needed by the landlord, who has given notice to quit which will take effect on 28th May this year. She is sitting under the guillotine wondering what will happen. I have told her in a letter than I hope very much that the legislation will be such as to allow her to remain in possession of the farm. The reason for the landlord wanting it is that he merely wishes to


round off his property, which is so large that I should not have thought that he would even have notices that some of the edges were a little ragged. This an example of people who will be particularly disappointed if the Amendment is not accepted.
On the question of retrospective legislation, not being a lawyer, luckily I do not have to put legal arguments. That implies no disrespect to the legal profession. Much disrespect for lawyers has been professed during the debates on the Bill. I do not know why; it is a perfectly legitimate profession. I look on the retrospective aspect from the point of view that the notice to quit takes effect. If it has not taken effect, I cannot see, on layman's grounds, why is should be regarded as retrospective. Nobody suggests that it should go back to a date prior to the delivery of the notice to quit.
I ask the Minister to have one more really hard look at this proposal to see whether he can give it his support. He will earn a lot of gratitude if he does. Very few people will suffer hardship if he accepts the Amendment, whereas a great many people will suffer hardship if he opposes it.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Mr. Emlyn Hooson(Montgomery)rose—

Hon. Members:Oh.

Mr. Hooson: Despite the barracking of the Anglo-Saxons, and although I hesitate to take part in Scottish debates, I should like to make a few remarks on the point about retrospective legislation and the use made of the old adage that hard cases make bad law. This adage arises from the fact that it was said by many old judges that if one has regard to the equity of the case one makes the law uncertain, and it was because of the uncertainty of the law, or the potential uncertainty of the law, that this trite saying came into being. There would not be such universal support for it, even among lawyers, as there was in the old days when people insisted on certainty within the law.
On many occasions in this Parliament the House has passed retrospective legislation. It is not unknown, and very often it is justified by the Government saying, "We have to balance these things. We have to have regard to the

arguments". Although retrospective legislation is undesirable in itself—and we start with that in the scales against it—we must put in the scales on the other side the question of what hardship will be caused if we do not pass the legislation.
The Government accept that there is hardship which should be put right, namely, that a tenant's son should be able to continue in the tenancy. There is an acknowledgement in the Bill that this matter needs to be put right. The Government have promised this for a long time. None of the notices to quit with which we are concerned under this Amendment has reached maturity. We cannot deal with this quantitatively; we must consider the quality of the act. I should have thought that the injustice done by retrospective legislation was virtually nil. If a landlord has entered into a contract, then if the Amendment is passed that contract will be incapable of performance. So there is no hardship on the landlord. If he has put in certain improvements on his farm he can go to arbitration and get an increase in the rent.
If we balance the two factors together, the retrospective legislation factor, and the hardship which is caused to undoubted worthy successors to the tenancies, the balance is in favour of the Amendment, and I would think that the House should accept it.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willisrose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Willis: This is very important to Scotland. I do not know why a bunch of English Members should try to deny the right of Scottish Members to try to say something about it.

Mr. Dewar: It was the Tories.

Mr. Willis: I want to support the arguments which have been made for the Amendment. I enter the debate to make my few remarks as a layman. I am not a lawyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At the same time I am quite prepared to recognise the importance of trying to avoid retrospection wherever possible, but, as has already been pointed out, I have been in the House a long time and I have seen a lot of retrospect-


tive Measures passed. They have always caused a great deal of controversy. Nevertheless, they have been passed, so we are creating no precedent here. My hon. Friend would not be creating a precedent by accepting this Amendment, or looking at it or doing something of that kind. I look at this from the point of view of whether we should follow the precedents which have been created and, if so, on what basis.
It seems to me that the basis on which we ought to consider this is not so much that of retrospection but that of justice. Justice seems to me important; it seems to me to be rather more important than a principle which does not seem to apply Here we are dealing with certain actions which, I assume, will date back about 15 months. I cannot see that they will date back much further than 18 months. What we have to ask ourselves is, what actions have been taken by owners, and what is the effect on the tenants, and who will suffer hardships?
We have had put to us by hon. Members opposite the argument that most of these things are done satisfactorily, that they have not created many problems. That is what has been argued, in which case I cannot see that a great number of owners will suffer great hardship. If the argument by hon. Members opposite is correct, then I cannot see that a great number is involved. There may be, as has been said, certain people who have taken certain steps because they have been able to give tenants 12 months' notice to quit, and they have taken certain steps as a result of that. I ask myself, are they going to suffer any hardship or injustice as a result of not being able to take those steps? As far as I can see, the answer is "No". They will be in exactly the same situation as they were 12 months ago, neither better off nor worse off. In other words, they will not suffer any more injustice or hardship, as I visualise it. They will be in exactly the same position as they were when they issued the notices. Listening to the debate, I have asked myself, will they suffer very great inconvenience or great hardship, sufficient to warrant inflicting undoubted hardship upon other people? I have come to the conclusion that they will not.
On the other side of the balance, we know that there will be a certain number of cases of very great hardship; we know very great hardship will be caused. In the view of most people—indeed, in the view of this House now—injustice will be caused. In view of the fact that others will not suffer great hardship, we ought to be prepared to accept an Amendment on these lines. The drafting may be bad, but I ask my hon. Friend to look at it again to see whether it is possible to do something about it in another place. I am sure that that would satsisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and certainly it would satisfy me if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us a kind look, rather than a denial of anything.

Mr. Buchan: I have listened with the greatest interest both to the central part and to the closing part of the discussion, and I do not find the position any easier than when I started. It was suggested that the Government would gain great credit if we gave way on this Amendment. It is very easy to give way in order to gain credit, but there is more than one aspect involved. It is not just one case, because there arc other cases pending, and I know the hardship.
We have been told that it is not a matter of law but of justice, and I suggest that, in the long-term, justice is best defended by good law. While I respect the feelings of my hon. Friends and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I hope they do mine, I urge them to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend not prepared to look at it?

Mr. Buchan: I have been looking at it for a long time, and I am in no position to look at it if we are forced to vote on it tonight.

Mr. Maclennan: The most remarkable feature of this debate has been the dog that did not bark. Not a word has come from the benches of the official Opposition and, for that reason, perhaps the debate has reached a higher level than usual. Real and important issues have been discussed, and a very difficult balance has been struck.
Hon. Members on the Liberal benches find themselves, as I do, firmly of the view that justice would be done if the


Amendment were accepted. But I recognise that a very important principle of law is at stake, and no one has been mare eloquent about it than the present Leader 3f the Liberal Party who, in the debate on the Burmah Oil Company Bill in 1965—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the altitude of this debate, but it must come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: I had intended to refer very briefly to the right hon. Gentleman's concluding words—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The attitude of the Leader of the Liberal Party to the Burmah Oil debate has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not wish to go into that matter or to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The attitude of the Liberal Party tonight is in marked contrast to the words of its Leader on the principle of retrospective legislation. He said:

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[10.16 p.m.


Bessell, Peter
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, w.)
Pardoe, John



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnston, Russell (Internets)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. Eric Lubbock and




Mr. Emlyn Hooson.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew


Allason, James (Hemel Hempatead)
Chapman, Donald
Fernyhough, E.


A[...]dritt, Walter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allen, Scholefield
Coe, Denis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Archer, Peter
Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foster, Sir John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fowler, Gerry


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Currie, G. B. H.
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Garrett, W. E.


Baker, W. H. K.
Dalyell, Tam
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dance, James
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bence Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Ginsburg, David


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gower, Raymond


Blackburn, F.
de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dempsey, James
Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Boardman, H.
Dickens, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Body Richard
Dobson, Ray
Gregory, Arnold


Bossom, Sir Clive
Doig, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boston, Terence
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunn, James A.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brooks, Edwin
Eadie, Alex
Hannan, William


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon.Tyne,N.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John
Hazell, Bert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Emery, Peter
Henig, Stanley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
English, Michael
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Burden, F. A.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph


Cant, R. B.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Holland, Philip


Carmichael, Neil
Farr, John
Hooley, Frank

":The reason why we introduce retrospective legislation in this country is to protect people from the consequence of illegal acts. It is not to take away accrued or existing rights."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1156.]

When I tabled this Amendment, I was aware that I was proposing that the House should interfere with the existing rights of landlords, the rights of tenants, and those of third parties acquired under the law as it stands at present.

Therefore, with full appreciation of the seriousness of the measure, at this point I ask the Under Secretary not to stand on what he has said, but to consider this matter further. In this situation I will seek to withdraw the Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: No."]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 256.

Horner, John
Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marquand David
Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Hoy, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christoper
Rose, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hynd, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Monro, Hector
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
More, Jasper
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N.E.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silver-man, Julius (Aston)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silvester, Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Slater, Joseph


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Small, William


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, John


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Spriggs, Leslie


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neal, Harold
Stodart, Anthony


Kelley, Richard
Neave, Airey
Swain, Thomas


Kenyon, Clifford
Newens, Stan
Swingler, Stephen


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Kirk, peter
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kitson, Timothy
Norwood, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Orbach, Maurice
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, John (Reading)
Orme, Stanley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lestor, Miss Joan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Oswald, Thomas
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wall, Patrick


Lomas, Kenneth
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Loughlin, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Loveys, W. H.
Park, Trevor
Webster, David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mac Arthur, Ian
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McBride, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacColl, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McGuire, Michael
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Woof, Robert


Mackie, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wright, Esmond


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, William (Rugby)
Yates, Victor


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Younger, Hn. George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pym, Francis



MacPherson, Malcolm
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maddan, Martin
Rankin, John
Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Walter Harrison


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Manuel, Archie
Richard, Ivor



Mapp, Charles

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. In view of what has just happened, may I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, should report our new coalition arrangements to Mr. King?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's remark. I hope that it is not lesémajesté but it is not a matter for me.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 29, in page 17, line 32, at end insert:

(a) the matter mentioned in section 18(2)(a) of this Act;

Amendment No. 30, in page 18, line 9, leave out the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)' and insert:

(a)the matter mentioned in paragraph (a), or
(b)the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) to (iii),—[Mr. Ross]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 15, leave out and (4) ' and insert to (5) '.
This is a drafting Amendment, to correct a small omission from the new Part 3 which was put into the Bill in Committee, and provides that Clause 18(5) shall apply to cases under Clause 9, and that the penalty provisions of Section 30 of the 1949 Act shall apply to any conditions imposed by the Land Court in respect of a notice to quit for amalgamation purposes, to which they consent.
It is intended that the same penalty provisions should be applicable to any conditions attached to any consent given to a notice to quit served during the transitional period covered by Clause 19. The Amendment is necessary because this was not adequately covered originally.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 17, after ' (4) ', insert '(b)'.—[Mr. Ross]

Clause 29.

(INTERPRETATION, ETC.—DRAINAGE CHARGES.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 33, leave out from second land ' to end of line 38 and insert:

'used as pasture ground on which the vegetation consists solely or mainly of one or more of the following, that is to say, bracken, gorse, heather, rushes and sedge, and land so used which is unsuitable for mowing by machine and on which the vegetation consists solely or mainly of grasses of poor feeding value '.
We have reconsidered the definition of rough grazing ' in Clause 29 in the light of the helpful comments of hon. Members in Committee on this difficult point, and we propose to substitute this different formula.
The new definition of rough grazing land is in two parts. First, we refer to pasture land on which the vegetation is solely or mainly bracken, gorse, heather rushes and sedge. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that pasture land comprising vegetation of this type is clearly rough grazing.
The second part deals with land on which the dominant vegetation is grass of poor feeding value. Most farmers will recognise grass in this category. But we cannot accept that all land covered by poor grass is rough grazing land and have therefore added the qualification that it must be unsuitable for mowing. Grassland will only qualify, therefore, as rough grazing if the grass is of poor feeding value and the land is, for example, too steep, rocky, uneven or permanently waterlogged to be mown by machine. This accords with the generally accepted idea of rough grazing land.
This is the first time that anyone has attempted to define rough grazing in law and I doubt whether, even with the help of the Committee, we have achieved a perfect definition. But it is the best possible and it should enable river authorities, who are responsible bodies, to distinguish fairly between land generally accepted as rough grazing and that which is not. Since the Amendment is designed to meet wishes expressed in Committee, I hope that the House will accept it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Godber: The point of the Amendment is clear. We discussed the matter in Committee and some of us questioned particularly the reference to self-seeded grass. We think that the new definition has got away from the problem that there arose. It is an interesting definition, but I am sure that one could pick holes


even there. It is very difficult to find an adequate definition of something we can all recognise quite easily. Like some other things, it is easier to see than to define. This is a reasonable attempt, and I hope that it will prove satisfactory in practice. It is important in the terms of this Clause that we should have a fairly clear definition so that those responsible will know how to deal with these matters. I feel that the Amendment provides an acceptable solution.

Sir Frank Pearson: I, too, welcome the Amendment. In Committee, it was found that the question of self-seeded grass raised many problems. One could have all sorts of grass which were not self-seeded within the category one had in mind. Though the Amendment is a very great improvement, it might have been better to have given up all hope of finding any exact definition of rough grazing, and to have come down to the statement that rough grazing is what is accepted by the custom of the country as rough grazing. However, I have no doubt that with the usual capacity of the British people to interpret somewhat doubtful laws in an intelligent manner. we shall be able to interpret this definition in a reasonable way.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 37.

(FURTHER POWERS TO MAKE GRANTS AND ADVANCES TO DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 31, line 40, at end insert:
(4) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make to a river authority grants in respect of the cost of any works executed by the authority in pursuance of section 35 of the said Act of 1961 (under which a drainage board may execute by agreement with and at the expense of any other person any drainage works which that person is entitled to execute); and the reference to expense in that section shall be construed as excluding the amount of any grant paid under this subsection in respect of the works in question.
Under the Ministry's farm ditching scheme, grants are available to farmers towards the cost of improvement works on ordinary farm ditches, and grants are also made to river authorities and in-

ternal drainage boards for improvements to arterial watercourses. Between these two categories, however, there is the watercourse which is too large to be classified as a farm ditch but which is neither a main river of a river authority nor a watercourse maintained by an internal drainage board. Difficulties arise where. in order to drain their land officially, farmers require work to be done on these intermediate channels.
A measure to remedy this situation was included in the 1961 Land Drainage Act, under which county and county borough councils were enabled to sponsor schemes on behalf of the riparian owners and occupiers, and to receive grant towards the cost. In some parts of the country, however, a difficulty still persists for the farmer where a council is not in a position to handle land drainage schemes, and in order to fill this awkward gap between the farm ditch and the arterial channel more effectively we propose to supplement the existing machinery so that river authorities. as well as county and county borough councils, can do this agency work on behalf of farmers, and receive grant.
The Amendment will thus ensure that facilities are available to farmers in any part of England and Wales to secure drainage improvements with the aid of Exchequer grant. For this reason I hope that it will be approved by the House.

Mr. Godber: We on this side of the House think that this is probably a useful Amendment. It seeks to fill a gap, and will probably help in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I hope that the river authorities will make use of the provision where the need arises.
I am not quite clear about the amount of grant that is envisaged, and perhaps, before we part with the Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what it is likely to be so that we may know whether the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind has been adequately covered.

Mr. Hoy: In common with schemes undertaken by county councils, a 50 per cent. grant will be paid.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 40.

(GRANTS FOR BREAK CROPS.)

Sir J. Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 35, line 17, after second "Wheat", insert "or".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 37, in page 35, leave out line 18.

Sir J. Gilmour: The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that the Bill makes no exclusions as to what are acceptable break crops. I imagine that the reasoning behind the exclusion of oats, rye, potatoes and sugar beet—an exclusion which I seek to delete—is that these are crops which are subject to adjustment in Price Review terms and it may be thought that the Price Review should not apply to break crops. As it is Britain's avowed intention to enter the Common Market, the question of crops which are definitely subject to price review may easily go out.
It is right that we should not exclude any crop from legislation which will last for a considerable time into the future. The Minister should have the right to pay the £5 an acre subsidy for a break crop in respect of any crop which he thinks suitable. This matter was discussed in Committee in relation to the sugar beet crop in Scotland on a day when I was not able to attend. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who spoke up on behalf of Scottish sugar beet growers.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland places too much reliance on difficulties of the sugar beet crop in Scotland by saying that it arose from the abolition of the transport subvention. Yields of sugar beet, which is one of the crops which the Bill as drafted would exclude but which the Amendment seeks to include, in Scotland in the five years from 1958 to 1962 were 12.96 tons—in round figures, 13 tons—per acre and included two years in which the yield was 15 tons per acre. This was well up to the United Kingdom average. It was the hope of those connected with the industry that the yields were sufficiently high to allow the crop to stand fairly and squarely on its own feet. As in the succeeding 5 years

from 1963 to 1967 the return has been only 11½ tons per acre, this hope has not been fulfilled. This is highlighted by the fact that for the first five years the average return to the grower was £77 10s. and in the next five years £74. In the meantime, costs had risen and, therefore, the profitability of the sugar beet grower goes down.
Because there is a real need to increase the amount of livestock fed in Britain, consideration should be given to the growing of sugar beet where the tops are fed off to livestock. This might well be a condition to sugar beet's qualifying as a break crop. As those who have seen sugar beet crops in England and Scotland know, there is a much larger percentage of tops in the crop in Scotland. I suppose this is because we have more hours of daylight during the summer and, even with the same varieties, a larger amount of tops is grown. A recent article in the Scottish National Farmers UnionJournalshowed that a crop of sugar beet in Scotland which produced 12 tons per acre would produce, in addition. 12 tons of tops. By taking in the pulp which comes back to the grower, it is possible to produce from the tops and the pulp a better crop than a crop of field beans, and, at the same time, there is a cash crop of sugar beet.
There is, therefore, a good case for saying that sugar beet could and should be used a break crop in any area where the tops are being fed off to livestock. This could apply not only in Scotland but in the North of England and possibly some of the other factory areas. It would be a more suitable way of employing the subsidy for break crop than spending money on growing, say, a crop of beans with a lower yield and less profitable results for the country as a whole.
I hope that the Government will look at the matter again. All I am asking them to do is to remove a disability in regard to the crops which could be a break to wheat and barley. It does not mean that they will have to give the subsidy. It is the removal of an exclusion. I remember a previous occasion when we excluded things from another Measure and then discovered that it was a mistake. I recall being in the same Lobby with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on that occasion.


We had excluded the fishing industry, and then we realised that it was a mistake.
On that occasion, I had the courage of my convictions and I went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Leith. I hope that, on this Amendment, he will ensure that his right hon. and hon. Friends have the same sort of conviction and accept what I propose. It would be an entirely helpful Amendment. It cannot do any harm. It would not make the Minister pay the subsidy for sugar beet, potatoes or anything else. But, if circumstances change, he will have the right to do so.

Mr. Buchan: We have covered a good deal of this ground already, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on his ingenuity in framing an Amendment within the terms of the Clause, but, as his speech clearly showed, he is concerned about sugar beet, and I shall reply to his argument on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with his point simply by referring to the acreage grown between 1958 and 1963, 13 tons an acre and then 11½ tons later. There was another destructive occurrence at that time. We were doing reasonably well—15,700 acres until 1962–63—and the factory which is in our minds was viable. But something else then happened. The Conservative Government slashed the transport subvention brutally, and by so doing they brought about the fall from 14,000 to 10,000 and then 9,000 acres in successive years. We have begun to restore the transport subvention, and now we are beginning to move the acreage up once more.
Our earlier argument on this question remains valid. These are commodities dealt with in the Annual Price Review. They should remain so. They should not be put in here. This Bill ought not to be used to change the present arrangement. The hon. Gentleman seems to feel no personal involvement or responsibility as a member of the party opposite, but what the Conservative Government did in slashing the transport subvention was very serious. There are other ways of raising or lowering the sugar beet acreage, apart from the break crop and Annual Price Review payments. The

transport subvention is one method. The effectiveness of it was shown when the Tories used it badly. We have shown how effective it is by using it sensibly.
I take the point that we must pay attention to this commodity both for the sake of the commodity itself and for the factory in Cupar. We are giving a great deal of thought to it, but the solution which I shall put forward will not be along the lines which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Amendment negatived

Clause 42.

(AMENDMENTS OF PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS ACT 1964.)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 36, line 47, at end insert:
(4) This section shall come into operation on a day appointed by an Order made by the Minister.
The purpose of the Amendment is to delay the coming into force of the Clause which amends the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964. Having read a great deal of correspondence on this subject over the last months, I can say that this is a fiendishly complicated problem which concerns many rose breeders in this country, particularly Mr. Sam McGredy, the well-known rose breeder in Northern Ireland.
The 1964 Act allows breeders of various roses to enjoy plant breeders' rights and royalties and it allows the Royal National Rose Society to have roses, among other plants, registered with it under the Society's code of registration. They are also registered with the Registrar of Plant Variety Rights, with the advice of the Royal National Rose Society, but the Registrar accepts only what are loosely called "fancy names" for roses, names such as Maria Callas, Daily Mail, City of Belfast and other names of roses which we all know very well. The purpose of the registration is, first, that the name of the rose should be protected.
The Clause will make it an offence to sell that variety by another name. What is worrying many rose breeders is that the effect of subsection (3) is to stop rose breeders from registering double names.
Many rose breeders find it useful to register double names. They use a "fancy name", such as those which I have quoted and which are easily recognised by the public, and they register code names, which are names which are entirely meaningless to the general public, and they do so in order that they cannot be duplicated in any other country. When the names are double registered, the breeder is covered by plant breeders' rights and by trade mark protection in countries where the international convention on plant breeders' rights are likely to be observed.
This method of double naming, with the fancy name which we all know and the code name which is rather different, has been used and well known in Europe since 1949, but there has recently been an international convention on plant breeders' rights which will tend to unify the law on this matter and which will eventually make life a great deal easier for many of the famous rose breeders in this and other countries in Europe. The difficulty is that this convention had not been ratified by more than two countries by the time the Bill was in Committee. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us how many countries have now ratified it.
It has caused great concern to these companies to find themselves between two stools, not having got the international Convention ratified, and enforced, but at the same time being tied down by the effect of Clause 42. This would mean that many of our most famous rose breeders would get the worst of both worlds in the interim period. This feeling is not only expressed by Mr. McGredy, who has been particularly active and vociferous on this point, but in addition this Amendment is supported by the Plant Breeders Rights Association, who originally thought that this Clause was all right. When the problems were pointed out to it, it decided that there were very serious repercussions under this Clause and it now, as I understand it, sustains its approval of this Amendment.
The greatest problem which will arise in the interim period will be for exporters. This is surely the time, above all others, when we should be doing everything possible to avoid harming or interrupting the trade, and the opportuni-

ties of our exporters, particularly in Europe. There has been a certain amount of opposition to the case which I am trying to put on behalf of rose breeders. I would like to quote from the Committee proceedings of 30th January, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was replying to the debate. He referred at some length to one of the objections that had been made to the point which I am now making, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). He spoke of a letter which he had received from one prominent gentleman in the rose world. He refers to this gentleman as being:
…Chairman of the Association of British Rose Producers; he is also Chairman of the Horticultural Trade Association's Rose Tree Trade Group, and Chairman of Rose Distribution Ltd.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee B, 30th January, 1968; c. 464.]
This sounds very impressive. Here, one would think, was someone who would be jealous to look after the rights and prospects of our rose breeders. When one looks very carefully at one of these companies, Rose Distribution Ltd., one sees in the articles of association of that company the following:
To resist applications made by any breeder or distributor of any variety of plants for any proprietary right or interest in respect of such variety, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
I hope that when we get a reply tonight we will be told that this would be wrong because this gentleman says so. We know that by the articles of association of one of his companies he has an interest in opposing the case that I am putting. His remarks should be invalid in any discussion that we may have.
I have said how important it is to help our exporters. The question is when will this Convention be ratified? We do not seem to know. It would be wrong for this House to jump in at this stage and pass this Clause with all its manifestations until the internal Convention has been ratified. My Amendment would not bring the Clause into effect yet. It would mean that it could be delayed by the Minister until a future date when the Convention was ratified. This is a thoroughly acceptable and sensible Amendment. It means that we can put off the day when we impose Clause 42 on the British rose breeders—and they are a very small and select company of


people—until there is a single widely accepted code in the world for plant breeders' rights. What is more important, we can delay it until there is effective machinery for making it work. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the Amendment.

Mr. John Wells: I support what my hon. Friend has said. There are emany aspects of the rose growers' market and a great deal of special pleading from different points of view. My hon. Friend fairly quoted the case of a distinguished breeder whose name is a household word, and equally fairly quoted the extreme opposite view quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee.
The merit of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that it will give the Government time to consider this matter again. They may feel that they have had a lot of time already, but the fact remains that these rose breeders, propagators and vendors are three minute industries, with three very different special points of view. They are bedevilled with many special problems. I mention a minor one: the great difficulty, in recent years, of getting landing permits for profesional budders who come to this country from Holland and Belgium for the budding season.
We are feeling our way gradually in plant breeders' rights. We are breaking new ground, and we should continue to break new ground; but we should do so gradually. We should not rush in. We should at least enable the Minister to wait until this International Convention is ratified by more countries.
My hon. Friend has referred to the need to help our exporters. In this purely pleasure market there is a big argument for hindering the importers, and saving imports. We are importing far too many high-quality and high-priced shrubs from Belgium, Holland and France. In addition to thinking about helping our exporters we should see that no preference or advantage is given to would-be importers. If the Clause goes through unamended importers rather than exporters will be the gainers.
I therefore hope that the Minister will pay close attention to the merits of the Amendment, because it cannot possibly wreck the Bill; it can only help it.

Mr. Godber: I support the Amendment. What has been proposed by my hon. Friend is a sensible way of trying to reach a solution to what proved a difficult problem in Committee. It is an interesting point in relation to rose breeders. We all recognise that few people are involved, but we discovered in our discussions in Committee that there is a wide divergence of view between them. Each man feels passionately about his own point of view, and he is entitled to say so when his business will be directly affected by the Clause.
We have to recognise that a change is being instituted under the Clause. In Committee we discovered that there are some who see considerable merit in the Clause and others who see grave harm to themselves in it. Still more time is needed to arrive at a fair solution and we must see where the balance lies. It is a complicated matter.
In Committee I tried to distinguish between those who breed, those who propagate and those who sell stock. Clearly the breeder has by far the greater expense, but it is a difficult matter to conclude who is right in this dispute. Even in the speech of my hon. Friend, when he mentioned a gentleman—I think it must have been Mr. Harkness, Chairman of Rose Distribution Ltd.—I thought he was a trifle hard on him.
That gentleman, when he wrote to us. did something which is very rarely done by people who lobby Members of Parliament. He set out the arguments for and against. I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember the letter in which he set out a number of arguments for and a certain number against. He was clearly trying to find a fair solution. I honestly do not think that the Government have found a fair solution yet.

11.0 p.m.

The real trouble arises from the fact that this is almost the only country—there are one or two others—which so far has got involved in ratification of the Convention. It is because of this that my hon. Friends felt that some time is needed so that other European countries can ratify the Convention and then our breeders would be on level terms with them. This marks a considerable move from the position we took in Committee. I hope the Government will come towards us and meet us as we have honestly


tried to find a compromise position, and I hope that we shall arrive at a conclusion considered satisfactory by the rose breeders of this country. None of us wants to penalise our rose breeders. The Amendment hinges particularly on ratification of the Convention.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will pay attention, when he replies, to the timing. I hope he will find himself able to accept the Amendment, which. after all, will leave discretion to the Minister as to when he brings the Clause into operation. The Amendment would give him more freedom to choose the time which would be least harmful to the breeders concerned.

Mr. John Mackie: I agree with hon. Members who have spoken, not only in the House but in the Committee that this is a complicated matter and one which takes a considerable amount of study to understand. The Amendment would enable my right hon. Friend to postpone the operation of Clause 42 until an appointed day. As the Clause now stands, the amendment to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964, would come into operation when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Quite frankly, I do not think the arguments for this breathing space are strong enough for us to agree to it. and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) quoted a letter from Mr. Harkness. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, it was a very fair letter and put at the end the points Mr. Harkness thought were for and against. He himself was for the amendment in the Bill. I think it is right to point out that in his letter—and I presume the hon. Member for Westmorland has read the whole letter and not looked only at the articles of association of one of the bodies—there is set out a number of bodies. I shall not read out the list. I have various letters which have been written to me in favour of the amendment in the Bill, including one from the Royal Horticultural Society of the United Kingdom, which, the hon. Member will agree, is no mean body. The body which was against the amendment in the Bill was the Plant Breeders Rights Association. Mr. Harkness told us that

31 persons living in the U.K. have applied for plant breeders' rights.…Of these, 12 are members of Rose Distribution Ltd., ipso facto either expelled from or going to be expelled from or not members of the P.B.R.A. I believe inquiries would show that 10 of the remaining applicants are members of neither organisation; which leaves 9 out of 31 applicants….
of that Association who were not in favour. This is one body connected to rose breeding. It was a very small minority indeed.

Mr. Godber: It seems to me that that argument is not very valid. The number of rose breeders in this country is very limited, anyway. It is a small minority of the people of this country, but is that a small minority of the rose breeders as opposed to the rose growers? That is the point.

Mr. Mackie: These are the figures Mr. Harkness gave us. We had to accept them. The list I had and his letter would lead us to believe that the weight of opinion in the industry as a whole was definitely in favour of the amendment of the 1964 Act to stop up this gap in it.
We spent a tremendous amount of time discussing these various points in Committee. I do not want to go into all the details again. The hon. Member for Westmorland went through these various points, and I do not need to go through them again. The system of double naming is one which will lead to great confusion. My right hon. Friend is strongly supported by the responsible opinion that I have mentioned, including the majority of other rose breeders in seeking to prevent the confusion.
There is a good case for making the new Clause effective as soon as possible. With the overwhelming support of the industry we want to strengthen the protection of plant breeders and to guard against attempts to introduce a system of double naming of rose varieties in this country. Such attempts have been made by a minority of breeders. My right hon. Friend is determined that they shall not succeed. It has been suggested that there is no hurry about this and that we should wait until the International Convention comes into force. This is the main point made by hon. Members opposite. This is a mistaken view. It is true that we would need Clause 42 when the Convention comes into force, but we need


the clause now for the benefits which it will confer on the industry.
It has been suggested that we should wait, because otherwise our breeders will be put at a disadvantage compared with breeders in other countries which may intend to wait for the Convention to come into force. This is the point which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) made. This is not so. If for the time being a British breeder wants to protect his variety in another Convention country by trade marking the registered variety name, this Clause will not stand in his way. Nor will the Clause prevent the Controller registering as a variety name a word which the breeder has trade marked in another country. The Clause has no direct effect outside the United Kingdom. Whether a breeder can obtain trade mark protection in another country, and for how long he can go on doing so, entirely depends on the domestic law of that country. My right hon. Friend is aware that certain countries, unlike the United Kingdom, are at present prepared to register trade marks for the names of plant varieties. If our breeders wish to take advantage of that system the new Clause will not prevent them.
For the time being, a variety name trade marked in, say, France, could be registered in the United Kingdom under the 1964 Act if acceptable in all other respects. I ask the House to note, however, that when the International Convention comes into force, countries which ratify the Convention have undertaken to drop trade mark protection in favour of the Convention system of plant breeders' rights. It is important that hon. Members should note that. The position then will be that all breeders, whether United Kingdom or foreign, will have to seek plant breeders' rights in Convention countries instead of trade marks, not, I emphasise, because of the Clause now before the House, but as a consequence of those countries changing over to the Convention system.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Westmorland and the hon. Member for Maidstone that Holland and the United Kingdom have already ratified the Convention, and the prospects are that Denmark will ratify very shortly and there is no reason to suspect that Belgium, France and Germany will not ratify the

Convention before the end of this summer.
I hope that I have said enough to show that we need Clause 42 now to stop double naming and that it would be wrong to wait for the Convention, and, further, that the Clause does not discriminate against our own breeders who will still be able to obtain trade marks in other Convention countries so long as the laws of those countries allow it.
I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland will be satisfied that the Clause should go into law with the Royal Assent on the Bill and let us get on with the job and not wait for other countries.

Mr. Jopling: It is difficult to know what decision to make, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, which seemed to argue for a breathing space to enable other countries to ratify. He said that Holland and the United Kingdom had ratified and that Denmark would do so before long and that the process would not take long. I hope that he is right, but what if he is not? There can be no guarantee. Some of the other European countries do not seem very forthcoming in ratifying.
But the matter may be raised in another place and that is probably the best course. If the breeders are still sufficiently concerned they will be able to arrange this, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said. With this understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 39, in page 39, line 23 [Clause 48], after "23(1)(b)" insert "and regulations under section 2".—[Mr. Peart]

Clause 51.

(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT, ETC.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 40, line 11, after 13 ', insert 44 '.
This is purely a drafting Amendment, which excepts transfers of land to or from a river authority or an internal drainage board from the need, in a rural development board's area, to seek its consent. In Scotland, we have no river


authorities or internal drainage boards and do not intend at present to have rural development boards, so Clause 44 has no application and the Amendment makes this clear.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 14, leave out and 45 ' and insert:
' 44, 45 and (Further functions of agricultural wages committees)'.—[Mr. Peart]

Title.

Amendment No. 44, in line 16, after 1926 ', insert:
', the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 '.—[Mr. Pear]

Order for Third Reading read—

[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I commended this Bill to the House on Second Reading on 9th November, I described it as a workmanlike and useful measure. After the discussions which we have had and the changes which we have made in Standing Committee and at Report stage, I can now commend this as an even better and more useful Bill, and thank those who made constructive contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), and their friends on both sides of the border have put a notice on the Order Paper which has made possible this debate on Third Reading. I hope, on this occasion, to set out again before the House the main objectives which we have set ourselves in this Bill.
The first objective which we have set ourselves is to take action on the Report of the Brambell Committee on animal welfare. This part of the Bill may not go as far as some welfare interests would wish, while some farmers may think they go further than is necessary or desirable. But we have tried throughout to avoid extremes and to retain a flexible approach. This we consider essential in the difficult and controversial field of animal welfare.
We set great store by the codes of practice provided for in Clause 3. As a preliminary step these codes are now being worked out by the recently established Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and other experts. The aim is to make the recommendations in them clear, precise and reasonable. The codes will be circulated in draft to all the interests concerned before being submitted to Parliament for approval. They will be backed by free advice from our veterinary staff. In this way, we shall be providing the farmer with guidance on how to avoid unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to his animals. Although the codes will not have the force of regulations, we confidently expect that livestock producers will welcome and follow the recommendations.
There has been some criticism of the width of the regulation-making powers being sought in Clause 2. We have met one criticism and accepted the proposition that these regulations should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure. We believe that these powers are necessary because the agricultural industry is capable of rapid change and is quick to adopt new husbandry techniques. We therefore need to be able to deal quickly and effectively with any implications which these changes may have for farm animal welfare. In general, however, the use of regulations to provide for mandatory standards, particularly of accommodation, will have to await the outcome of research. This is why we intend at first to rely mainly on the codes of practice.
Apart from inspection and sampling in connection with diets and feeding-stuffs, in which local authorities will have a part to play, the main responsibility for checking on the welfare of livestock and on the observance of any relevant regulations will rest on our own veterinary staff. We think that this is right, because, as hon. Members will appreciate, much of this work will involve veterinary judgments. I know also that most farmers will welcome this.
My right hon. Friend and I believe that the Bill represents a reasonable but important advance in the welfare of livestock, and I am sure that the House will support it.
I turn now to payments by landlords to tenant farmers—Part II of the Bill—


who are dispossessed in order that their land may be put to some non-agricultural use, or who are dispossessed at such short notice as to lose the profits which they would have been able to make if the more usual period of notice had been observed. It is widely agreed that tenant farmers have particular difficulties. The acreage of rented land is steadily falling. The pressure from such major land-consumers as new towns and reservoirs increases as our population expands. We cannot remove these pressures from the tenant farmer but we can, by the measures included in the Bill, assure him of a reasonable lump sum to help him while he is reorganising his life after leaving the farm or reorganising his farming practices after losing some part of his holding.
This part of the Bill has been welcomed, in principle, on both sides of the House. There has been some criticism, however, that it is unnecessarily complicated and that in basing the sum which the tenant farmer will receive under Clause 9 on the current rent of the farm, we have taken insufficient account of differences in individual circumstances. I do not think that the Bill could be made simpler without opening the door to uncertainties and leading to many more references to the Agricultural Land Tribunal or some other adjudicating body.
I recognise that the tenant who has been paying a high rent will himself be more highly paid on dispossession than the tenant whose rent has been low. But if the new payments are based, as the present disturbance compensation is based, on actual known rents, it will make for a simpler and speedier settlement for both landlord and tenant. Part II is in essence a first-aid measure to bring relief to a section of the community on whom the community's needs have been bearing with particular harshness. I know that hon. Members are in sympathy with this objective.
I shall not attempt a detailed statement of Part III. This is a purely Scottish provision and was introduced, as hon. Members know, in Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be more than willing to answer any questions about it. Its main purpose is to restore to the

nearer relatives of deceased tenant farmers in Scotland some measure of the security which they had under the Scottish Agricultural Holdings Act, 1949, but which they lost under the Agriculture Act, 1958. I am of course considering whether there is a case for something of a similar kind in England and Wales. I am very conscious of the concern of my hon. Friend, the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about this. In England and Wales, however, it would be an entirely new departure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to matters which are not in the Bill. That is out of order on Third Reading.

Mr. Peart: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to put on record that I was looking at this, and had earlier said that I would undertake a review. I leave it at that.
Part IV—land drainage—is the longest Part of the Bill but is perhaps the least controversial. It substitutes acreage for Schedule A as the basis for assessing drainage charges on agricultural land. It provides a new method for determining the amount of the general drainage charge which will make it more closely equivalent than before to the contribution which the general ratepayer makes to the river authority precept. It also enables internal drainage boards to remedy the more serious anomalies which have arisen from the use of Schedule A values as a basis of assessment for drainage rates. The proposals in this part both on drainage charges and on drainage rates have been generally welcomed by all the interests.
There remain the Clauses of the Bill which deal with a number of small but useful developments of Government policy. We provide help for the bacon curing industry. We take powers to give grants for break crops; on this we are indebted in particular to the hon. Member for Edinburgh. West (Mr. Stodart) for his suggestion that crops which are not harvested in the normal sense should not be excluded.
We have taken powers which will aid the process of co-operation in agriculture, forestry and fishing. It has been my consistent objective to stimulate this process. We have just agreed on Report a new


Clause which is not far-reaching in itself but which will, I hope, make possible an agricultural wages structure, if this should be the wish of the industry. This is also an objective for which many have striven over the years.
I do not think that I need say more about the details of the Bill. I remain confident that it will aid the improvement of the industry for which I am responsible. I commend it to the House.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I congratulate the Minister on having reached this stage. This is a useful, small Measure which, in the main, we welcomed when it originated and, in the main, continue to believe that it will serve a useful purpose. But when the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was an even better Bill than when it: started he was stretching things a little far. I will elaborate that theme in a moment or two.
The Minister has paid his tribute to us on this side. We have tried to help to improve the Bill, and we are, of course, grateful for the way in which he has accepted a number of suggestions. To that extent, we agree that certain Clauses are better. We are grateful for the Amendment to Clause 2 introducing the affirmative Resolution procedure, because from the start we felt that the Clause contained very wide powers and that it was important to have greater restrictions on the Government of the day in bringing in regulations under it. Personally, I should have liked to have seen the Government of the day even more confined.
The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to remove our fears about Clause 6. It is better for the Amendments that have been made to it.
As regards Part I as a whole, we accept that it was perhaps wise to introduce legislation in some way following on the Brambell Report, and we believe that as long as the Minister adheres, as far as is practically possible, to the provisions of Clause 3 he will get the acceptance of the industry as a whole.
We welcome the general provisions of Part II. We are, however, still somewhat unhappy with the explanation given by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries about the position of the landlord under Clause 9. This will be pursued in another place. We believe that there is still much confusion of thought on this

question. The Minister made particular reference just now to the question of the tenant on a low rent. This is the point we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is obviously still in the Minister's mind. A good case was made on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and others. I do not think that the Ministry has given sufficient thought to this question. In spite of what the Minister said about making the Bill more complicated, I believe that more could have been done to safeguard the position of the tenant on a low rental when he is dispossessed for development purposes. Subject to those comments, we think that Part II is useful.
We find Part III thoroughly objectionable. We have debated this at considerable length today. I do not propose to go into it in any detail. It was obviously a matter for my Scottish colleagues to deal with, because it concerns Scottish matters. Were I not barred by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from venturing where the Minister sought to venture for a few moments, I would say that very dangerous precedents were being established here. If the Minister should be so unwise as to seek to emulate his Scottish colleagues, he will seek to emulate his Scottish colleagues, he will meet very stiff resistance from this side. We think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has behaved quite deplorably over this. By introducing a provision of this kind into a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and by introducing it as late as he did in the Bill, he has treated the House with a degree of levity which is deplorable. The reasons which have been adduced in support of this provision have not been anything like sufficient to justify the measures the right hon. Gentleman has taken.
Looking at this matter from outside—I admit that it does not affect any aspect with which I am concerned, except in so far as it might lead to similar provisions for England and Wales—it seems to me that it has been introduced to try to serve some narrow political issue that may be confronting Scotland at present and is certainly not in the long-term interests of farmers in Scotland or anywhere else.
A few moments ago the Minister said that one of the difficulties was that the


acreage of rented land was steadily falling. This is exactly the type of provision which will make the acreage of rented land fall. If provisions of this kind are in existence, if and when any farm comes to hand it will be either kept in hand by the landlord or sold off and will not be rented again. That situation will arise as a direct result of provisions such as this introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. What the Minister of Agriculture deplores the Secretary of State for Scotland encourages. There is a wide divergence of view between the two right hon. Gentlemen on this. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will maintain a stout resistance to any temptation to follow the line taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is unfortunate that this has been introduced into a Bill which otherwise is a useful one.
I agree with what the Minister said about Part IV. It is a helpful, though complicated, Part, but one which I hope will help to make the drainage charges work in a way which they have not done before and enable drainage rates in internal drainage board areas to be so modified as to remove the serious anomalies. I renew the plea I made on Second Reading that quadrainage boards this be regarded as an interim measure pending full revaluation. Until there can be a full revaluation, I do not believe that a real solution to the problem can be found.
We think that in general the miscellaneous provisions contained in Part V are useful. But a problem still remains in regard to Clause 42, and we shall have to return to it in another place. The Amendment which we put forward was a fair compromise, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not really face it. I hope that a solution can be found.
With those comments—apart from what I have had to say about Part III—I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, which, I hope, will prove of use to the industry as a whole.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee for coming in again at this stage,

not having been on the Committee owing to other duties on Select Committees which I have to perform for the House. I shall confine my remarks, in view of the hour, to that part of the Bill which I discussed on Second Reading. The matter was discussed in Committee, but it has only been touched on tonight. I refer to Part IV, dealing with land drainage.
On Second Reading, I raised a number of matters on behalf of the Association of Drainage Authorities, of which I am an honorary vice-president. The Association is extremely grateful to the Ministry for the co-operation which it has received, but there are one or two points outstanding which still give it concern. I should be grateful if they could be cleared up tonight. As Scotland has no internal drainage boards, if the Minister would care to intervene, I shall readily give way so that he may give the assurances which I particularly want.
In replying to the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an assurance that new arrangements would be made-
… it will be necessary for owner-occupiers to have access to the register or rate book, and this is a matter which we have in mind. We are considering adding an appropriate provision to the Bill.
I have studied the proceedings in the Standing Committee and, so far as I can see, no new provision has been added to cover that point. I shall be grateful to be corrected if I am wrong.

Mr. Hoy: I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is asking whether we made provision for access to the rolls, this we certainly did in Committee.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am very glad to hear it. I know that there was an understanding that it would be done, but I could not discover the subsection which now covered the point. If we could be told that, I should be grateful.
The second matter was referred to by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply on Second Reading when he gave an assurance that,
the Inland Revenue has agreed that local valuation officers may, if requested, give informal advice to internal drainage boards on apportionment of rateable values other than


for public utilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 1361.]
This matter has not been cleared up entirely, and the Association of Drainage Author ties, which is the collective body for the internal drainage boards, is still worried about it. Many public utilities go right across many drainage board boundaries, parish boundaries, and so on. Most rating assessments of public utilities are based on the profits of the utilities, and the consequence is that drainage boards are unable themselves to assess what would be a fair revision of an assessment where utilities go outside their own areas as well as lying partly within them.
I understand that valuation officers would be able to get at the full figures through the Inland Revenue, but the drainage boards themselves have no right to make inquiries outside their own borders. Therefore, a board can do nothing but make a wild guess, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to revise what he said on Second Reading. If the Government would agree to local valuation officers of the Inland Revenue being able to make available the facts in regard to all public utilities as well as others assessed for drainage rates, the difficulty would be removed. This is of considerable concern.
As the Parliamentary Secretary very fairly said in Committee, the Inland Revenue is under pressure. I made it clear on Second Reading, as the Association has to the Government, that there was no intention of asking the Inland Revenue to initiate this exercise. What is wanted is that if drainage boards approach the Inland Revenue, the facts and advice can be given on an informal basis. I do not think that there is any need to provide for that in the Bill, but we should like an assurance that in cases like this, where public utilities and others are affected, the facts can be given when they are known.
The Bill also deals with drainage charges. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and the Parliamentary Secretary for recognising that I was among the few who foresaw that the general charge would probably not operate. I have been checking the facts and, as far as I can see, one of the river boards affecting my constituency levies a general

charge and another does not, but none of them has levied a special charge. There is now a desire for the special charge to be used. It may interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that in its latest report, for 1966–67, the Nene and Welland River Board says:
There have been representations and pressure that drainage improvements should be carried out on some of the lesser streams outside the internal drainage districts, and the matter "—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty associating what the hon. Gentleman is saying with the contents of the Bill. As he will appreciate, we can discuss only what is in the Bill. Perhaps he will help me.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I well remember a former Member of the House, the late Sir Ernest Shepperson, one of the greatest experts on drainage, telling me that as a young politician I would be well advised by an old one if I had nothing whatever to do with land drainage, because nobody would ever understand me. I appreciate that this is an immensely complicated matter, but I am now dealing with the special charge, which is definitely covered by the Bill and which is now to be increased to 2s. I was saying that the Nene and Welland Board says that it would be untimely to make this sort of charge while we are amending the principal Act by the Bill. As the Bill passes to another place, I hope that their Lordships will exercise expedition to enable the river board which concerns my constituency to get on with its work, as it is ready to do.
I am certain that it is wise, as the Bill does, to make the schemes under the special charges a practical and viable possibility, which they were not before, which is why the boards have not used them. I am convinced that the Bill will enable them to get on with their work and I and the associations concerned are very grateful. I should be even more grateful if before we part with the Bill we can have the assurance for which I asked about public utilities.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: The Bill contains a number of useful measures, such as those dealing with the welfare of animals, grants to drainage authorities and so on. Those dealing with the wel-


fare of animals are very welcome. Farmers generally are lovers of animals and like to treat them well, but in recent years modern farming has changed the situation considerably. Keeping animals, whose natural instinct is to forage on a free range, closely confined is cruel, and I hope that the Bill will put that right.
A vital principle is involved in Part III, which deals with security of tenure and applies only to Scotland. I want to declare an interest here because I am a tenant farmer with a family. In Committee this Clause was fully debated and a number of hon. Members from south of the Border took part. While one may admire their sincerity and the manner in which they presented and argued their case, it was quite evident to me that they did not appreciate why we in Scotland attach so much importance to security of tenure. One of the reasons is that as a people we have suffered more through lack of security than any other people in any other part of Britain.
Landlords evicted their tenants by the hundreds from land which they had reclaimed from moor and bog, with much hard labour and without many of today's implements. If tenants showed any resistance, their homes were set on fire over their heads. I mention this in order to let those who are not acquainted with the facts realise why the very term "security of tenure" is so meaningful to the Highland farmer. The N.F.U. of Scotland have been pressing the Government for this legislation since the 1958 Act, notwithstanding the fact that the Landowners' Federation has consistently opposed it. I congratulate the N.F.U. on its successful efforts and assure it that it has earned the heartfelt thanks of a large number of tenant farmers in Scotland.
The Secretary of State and his hon. Friend who piloted this Clause through Committee have been criticised for introducing the Clause in Committee rather than on First Reading. Why should they be so criticised? The right hon. Gentleman has been pressed by his hon. Friends as well as the Liberal Members for this type of legislation since the Government came into power. I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having the wisdom to bring this Clause into the Bill

rather than waste precious time by introducing fresh legislation.
It should be made clear that this is not a Measure to set the heather alight in Scotland. It is a modest Measure, meaning that on the death of a tenant, a near relative, defined as husband or wife, son or daughter, will succeed to the tenancy. This is chiefly applicable to tenant farmers' sons who would wish to carry on in their father's footsteps. Not all sons would wish to do so, and in that case the farm would be available for letting.
I am amazed at the strange reasoning of the Landowners Federation. It has said:
The urgent need for Scottish agriculture today is for a dynamic and efficient industry, able to achieve a continuously higher production of food at lower prices, and at the same time to provide a fair return on the capital employed in the industry.
Agreed. But surely this cuts both ways. Tenants employ capital in the same way as landowners. Anyone who has experience of farming knows that security of tenure is one of the first essentials if we are to achieve good husbandry. At present, when many tenant farmers have to invest so much capital in farm improvements and mechanisation—and these amounts are increasing every year—it is more essential than ever that they should have reasonable security. It has been argued by some that, although the Government want expansion, this kind of Measure will have the opposite effect, and will lead to mediocre farming.
This is utter nonsense. The type of tenant who would benefit by this Measure is not in farming to play around, but in order to earn a living. Again, anyone with experience in farming is well aware that the inefficient farmer will not last the pace very long under present-day conditions. It may be that in some of the fat lands in South-East Scotland—where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) farms—the mediocre farmers may last the pace, but those are very exceptional cases. The Landowners Federation appears to be greatly concerned about the number of students training at the colleges with a view to getting farmers. They ask what is to be done for them and where they are to get farms.
It may be that those modern seats of learning are bursting at the seams with able young men who wish to take up farming, and it is a matter of great regret that there are so few farms available to let, but I very much question the morality of turning out a hard-working and efficient farmer's son, who has worked all his life on a farm, in order to make room for a bright boy from a college. If the Landowner's Federation is so concerned about the availability of farms to let, it has at least part of the remedy in its own hands. I submit that it should consider the large number of farms that are kept in hand on many estates in Scotland today. In order to be consistent it might issue a directive to its own members, requesting them to offer some of those farms to let. I am satisfied that if it did the farms would enjoy a higher standard of husbandry.
Those who are so vehemently opposed to the Measure are magnifying out of all proportion the problems that may arise. I agree that a sound principle is involved here. Contrary to what the opponents of Clause 18 maintain, I say that the landlord will still have protection against the inefficient tenant under the provissions of the 1949 Act. It is no reflection on the good landlord—of whom there are many—who take pride in having several generations of the same family in their estates.
I was hoping that some Tories might see some merit in the Clause and support it, but I was disappointed. Tonight we saw history repeating itself. All the Tories went into the landlords' Lobby and all the Liberals into the tenants' Lobby. I support the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party and wish it a speedy journey to the Statute Book.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Hazell: I will not keep the House for more than two or three minutes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this Measure to this stage of its journey. Part I caused considerable public concern prior to the setting up of the Brambell Committee, and the implementation of some of its recommendations in Part I will go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the ability of the farmers and farm workers to look after stock on which their livelihood obviously depends.
It is a fact that certain sections of the public concerned with the welfare of animals think that perhaps the Bill does not go quite far enough. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend has gone some long way towards meeting the objections there were in the public mind a year or so ago. It is recognised in the industry that if the vast majority of those having responsibility for the care of stock neglected the animals, then necessarily and obviously production would suffer. It came out very clearly in Committee that there is a good deal of considered thought given to the care of animals by those who have charge of them.
I am glad, however, that my right hon. Friend, under Part I, is to issue codes of recommendation for the welfare of stock, because these, I think, will be most helpful to new entrants to the industry. I think such codes should go a long way towards guiding youngsters taking agriculture as a career in the art which their fathers and forefathers acquired by experience. I am sure the new training boards will welcome these codes of recommendations the Minister will be putting forward as a means of assisting them in their obligations.
In view of the lateness of the hour, there is only one other matter to which I shall make reference, the new Clause the House so generously accepted relative to additional powers for the county agricultural wages committees. Although those new powers will do nothing about fixing rates of pay or categories of people and their rates, because that is the responsibility of the stautory Agricutlural Wages Board, the powers will enable the county wages committees to sort out difficulties which, during the early stages of the operation of the wages structure will occur between employers and employed where it has not been possible for mutual agreement to be reached without the intervention of the county wages committees. I thank my right hon. Friend for the Clause, and the House for the cordial welcome it gave to it, and I hope that when the wages structure is finally devised for the industry it will offer to the youngsters of the future a career which is lacking in British agriculture at present, when there is only one basic rate and anything above that is due to generosity, or recognition of workers' skill


and effort, on the part of the best employers in the industry.

11.53 p.m.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: It is late, and we have had a long discussion, and therefore I shall keep the House only a short time, and follow the example of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), who happens to be my own Member of Parliament. However, because it is late, I shall not follow him in many of his comments.
I think Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is no misnomer, because today we have perambulated through various provisions ranging from security of tenure in Scotland, through the very happy fields of rose growers and breeders, to the problems of land drainage about which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) spoke. It has been a varied discussion.
I am very glad my right hon. Friend said a word about the phrase, the very telling phrase, used by the Minister, in a sense, I think, by accident; at least, he did not understand the full implications of it. He said the acreage of tenanted land has fallen. Well, it has. It has fallen in England quite steeply, and my guess is—I would not venture to trespass on the preserves of agriculture in Scotland because I know nothing about them—that when Clause 18 and other provisions of Part III come into operation the acreage of tenant land in Scotland will fall even more steeply. The reason is that if there is over-security of tenure to the tenant, there is a point beyond which the landlord cannot move because he is tied up in so many knots. When a farm comes on hand for any reason, as my right hon. Friend said, the landlord is under almost irresistible pressure either to farm it himself, if he has the capital to do so, or, if he has not, to sell it, and less and less land will become available for letting.
This is the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) missed. He disclosed that he did not understand the difference between the working capital which a tenant farmer has to find and the capital in respect of fixed equipment which the landlord has to find. I have rarely heard a more confused speech

about the economics of the landlord and tenant system than that of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: My point was that I know there are so many tenants who provide the equipment which the landlord ought to provide, but they have this agreement, and it has been going on a long time. Many landlords are not anxious to see a change in the tenancy system, because they know that they will have to pay substantial sums. If it is the case that in England the landlord provides all the fixed equipment, it is not so in Scotland.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: As I was saying, if we overdo security of tenure in Scotland, as in England, it means that there will be less and less tenanted lands available to let. There is an argument for saying that this is a good thing. If so, let the right hon. Gentleman say so. It is no good making that sort of statement without realising the consequences.
I would make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman that between now and the time when the Bill gets to another place he should have one more look—could I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention? I want to make one more plea, either to the Minister of Agriculture—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member asking the Minister to include something in the Bill which is not already in it, because this is out of order on Third Reading?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No. I am asking one or other of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop talking and listen. I am making a plea, either to the Minister or to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to have one more look at the tax implications both for landlord and tenant in respect of Clause 9. I cannot honestly compliment either of them on the amount of homework that they have done with their own Department and the Treasury. Anybody looking at Clause 9, even on Second Reading, must have seen that there are considerable complications and implications in respect of the various compensations payable by the landlord to the tenant. There were implications about a possible Capital Gains Tax and about a possible development levy.
When this was raised on Second Reading, neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State for Scotland had the faintest idea what it was about, and they said so. Second Reading was on 9th November. The point was raised again in Committee on 12th December. By that time the right hon. Gentleman had got it right in respect of the Capital Gains Tax, but he still did not know about the development levy. We have now got to Third Reading on 21st February, and the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) concerning the development levy was so confused as to make almost no sense. The details are more suitably raised in another place, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman to try to put this clear between now and then. Otherwise, there will be great confusion and a tremendous amount of litigation, which is unnecessary if he clarifies his own intentions.

12 m.

Mr. Stodart: Our discussion on Part I might have taken a good deal longer, but, for reasons which the Minister will appreciate, we got through it fairly well. Complicated as Part II is, we elicited much that is worth while and nearly discovered what a shelter belt is. At least we now know that it is excluded from the increased compensation payments, which is a point which was worrying many people interested in forestry.
The longer that the break crop grant under Part V is limited to beans, the less value it will have for Scotland. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that no other crops were in mind, but the Under-Secretary said that discussions were taking place. There was slight contradiction, and our attempts to resolve it were unsuccessful. I hope that discussions are going on and that an announcement will be possible in time for whatever break crop is chosen for Scotland to have the full advantage this coming year. This means within the coming seeding time.
On Part III, I am very sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), with whom I usually agree about. farming, but his doctrine will have exactly the reverse effect to what he wants, and those for whom we would

like tenanted farms will find it much more difficult to get them.
I have inquired from what I believe are extremely reliable sources about the Inverness case and I regard it as a misuse of the landlord's right. It should not have happened, but that is not a sound reason for the step which has been taken tonight, because vindictiveness gets one nowhere. That was something which the landlord showed and should not have shown, but the Government have been vindictive in bringing in this Clause and it is the industry which will suffer in the end.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said what he did. I wish that some of his hon. Friends and some of the people in authority in the Landowners' Federation had spoken out earlier, as that might have helped the individual, but it does not remove the power to do it for other individuals.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) savoured of arrogance when he spoke about the hon. Member from the northern county. If the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) did not speak for Cromarty, he certainly spoke for Ross. The hon. Member's speech contained the reason why this means so much more to Scotland. Our land tenure system is different. Our whole history and traditions are different. This kind of thing happening in this kind of place creates the worst possible atmosphere for the sort of cooperation that is essential.
The hon. Member suggested that to bring that provision into the Bill at this time showed a measure of levity. I assure him that whatever the spirit with which I presented the new Clauses, it was not one of levity. He also said that it was an affront to Parliament. My feeling, I assure him, is that if, having made up my mind and seen my way to get workable Clauses which retained a certain measure of flexibility and balance, I had not taken the first opportunity, that would have been an affront to Parliament when dealing with an important matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty for the


support he gave me in this matter because he has considerable knowledge as a tenant farmer in Scotland. I value his advice a little more than that of the hon. Member for Windsor in the way he spoke.
The hon. Member for Windsor and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) spoke tonight about the tax position and seemed to think that there was confusion. They asked whether the position had been made clear. The tax position is that the tenant does not pay tax on Clause 9 payments; he pays neither Capital Gains Tax, betterment levy nor Income Tax. The landlord will be able to set off Clause 9 payments against his liabilities for Capital Gains Tax but will not be able to do so with betterment levy.
The right hon. Member for Grantham deplored the selection of "actual rent". This has been explained more than once. I remember trying to do it on Second Reading and it was done again in Committee. We could not provide for low rent resulting from, for example, a full repairing lease to be stepped up for the purpose of the new payment without adopting widely different arbitration procedures from those of the Agricultural Holdings Act. The point is that the actual rent is known. It is simple and certain and will make for simple settlements with a minimum of dispute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) praised us for our reasonable approach in Part I of the Bill. He will find that we have adopted a very sensible approach in using the code of practice and, now, with the affirmative procedure therewith and going on, we hope, as a result of having the advantage of research, to the position of regulation.
I noticed what my hon. Friend said about the new powers of the agricultural wages boards. As he knows, England and Wales arc a step ahead in having a new structure which, everyone thinks, is desirable. Scotland has not got as far as that. We felt it right to take the enabling powers to enable that to be done, and this has been done with a considerable measure of agreement.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) did not desert his

drainage interests, and he pursued the matter right to the end. We appreciate that certain anomalies remain. When agricultural land and internal drainage districts are still assessed on the basis of Schedule A values, most of which have remained unaltered since 1935. there is bound to be an element of unreality and roughness about it. The Government accept that revaluation of this land is the only satisfactory solution for the long term. I would hope that circumstances might permit this, perhaps, by the time the next general valuation takes place, but I can give no assurance about that at present.
The hon. Gentleman taxed me further on what I said about public utilities. I know that he will appreciate the advantage of what we have done in relation to the local valuation office of the Inland Revenue giving informal advice to the internal drainage boards in the apportionment of rateable value other than this. The very real difficulty is that the rateable values of the public utility undertakings are assessed by statutory formulae which are very complicated indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he has ever tried to work them out.
The difficulty is that these assessments are not made by reference to the value of the individual properties owned by the undertakings but are, generally speaking, based on output. That applies to both water and electricity undertakings, and there are variations even within that range. The information necessary for apportionment relating to output in specific areas is information that the valuation office would not have and does not require for its own purposes.
Valuation offices have no power to obtain the information, nor have they the staff necessary to collect it and process it. It is with considerable regret that the Inland Revenue is unable to provide help in apportioning the values of these utilities, so the internal drainage boards will have to continue as they have done in the past, and determine these values in consultation with the undertakings concerned.
The point raised about inspection is dealt with in Clause 35(1,b).
There has been a fairly general welcome for the Bill, with very considerable


head-shaking over Part III. I am prepared to take that head shaking for Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with me on this point, he is disagreeing with the organised farmers in Scotland, and if it comes to the point where we as a Government should please the right hon. Gentleman or the Scottish farmers, our choice must be to please the Scottish farmers.
Let us be aware of the fact that there are people who are critical of this United Kingdom Parliament. They say that we are not adaptable enough to meet the needs and problems of Scotland; that this is, as they call it, a "London-based Government". Yet here we are, within the United Kingdom Parliament, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the support generally of the House of Commons, addressing himself to what has been a problem for Scottish farmers since 1958, and meeting it successfully. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not join in it with us.
This awful question of the adoption of middle-aged men has been referred to at an earlier stage, and was discussed on an Amendment that has now been made to the Clause concerned. Adoption can be done only under the procedure laid down in the Adoption Act, 1958. Those adopted cannot be middle-aged men—they must be under the age of 21—and the suggestion of bribery, of money passing that has been suggested, is also ruled out by that Act. I told hon. Members that I would look at that point, I have done so, and I will look at it again.
On the whole, the Bill is worthy of the support and attention that has been rightly given to it by the House.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed

SCHOOL MEALS SERVICE (SELECTIVITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Selectivity is the new vogue word of British politics. Inside and outside Parliament, and on both sides of the political fence, more and more people are urging a change towards increasing selectivity in the social services. By this they mean that help from public funds should be given only to those whose need can be proved. And they strongly condemn the award of social benefits to anyone else.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been especially strident in their condemnation of the universal principle of social security for all, irrespective of means. They argue that universality is out-dated and that help must be concentrated on those whose needs are greatest. The right hon. Members for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have emerged as two of the leading Parliamentary advocates of selectivity. Indeed, they appear to hate the universal principle. For them, selectivity is a bright new concept and they see themselves as modernisers who could save a great deal of public money by restricting help to cases of proven need.
But, of course, selectivity is anything but a new idea and the two right hon. Members cannot be allowed to masquerade as modernisers. We already have selectivity in many different fields, and it is the present working of selectivity in the school meals service that I wish to consider tonight. We have had selectivity in the school meals service for many years. The parents who can afford to do so are required to pay for their children's meals, while the children of widows and of parents who are sick, disabled or who, for other reasons, are living on very low incomes are entitled to free school meals.
It is estimated that last year 660,000 children were thus entitled to free school meals. But well over 300,000 of these children refused to take free meals. They


refused, according to press reports of inquiries undertaken by chief education welfare officers, because their parents were sensitive about "taking charity". I understand that one chief education welfare officer even encountered parents who said that, because they were already receiving free clothing, they felt that they had to "draw the line" at free meals. Words such as "stigma" are said to have been used by parents, and one eminent journalist, commenting on these enquiries inThe Times of 25th July, 1967, reported my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science as being
strongly opposed to any system that enables the paying children to poke a finger of scorn at the others".
My right hon. Friend does well to see that it is not only the parents who feel sensitive about existing arrangements for free school meals. I am glad he recognises that some of the children who can pay their way in schools sometimes take pride in comparing themselves with the children from poorer families who cannot do so. My right hon. Friend is much more in touch with the real world than the municipal official who said recently:
Those who pay, pay, and that is all there is to it. I think adults pay far more attention to this sort of discrimination than the children. In our experience, the children take little or no notice of it.
Against this assessment, I quote from the published account of how an adolescent girl, Janice, who is now in receipt of free school meals, sees the present system:
We had this teacher once, and always on a Monday she would say ' And where's your dinner money? ' and they'd all laugh and she knew I had free dinners. She knew. They think if you're poor, you don't care. What do they think you are? You're human. You've got feelings, same as they have, haven't you? All you're thinking is that you mustn't cry, else they'll laugh and all you want to do is run and run and run and never come back. One day, I'll laugh at them. I'll work in Woolworths and never have kids. It's no fun being a kid".
Janice is 14. With the torments which at least some of the children like her have to face, is it any wonder that there are other families on the poverty line who will gladly go without anything rather than send their children for free

school meals. Or that the writer who published Janice's comment should have considered that
the advantages which our philanthropic, enlightened Welfare State have given here are destroying her. They have left marks on her which will be with her for the rest of her life.
This is a subject of the highest social and human importance. The family circumstances of the adolescent girl to whom I have referred entitle her to free school meals. But she is humiliated by selectivity. And there are hundreds of thousands of very poor children who prefer to go without, or whose parents prefer them to go without, rather than have their names on a different page of the school meals register.
In a document which is to be presented by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party for discussion at the 7th annual conference of the Young Socialists, to be held on 13th-15th April, 1968, it is stated:
Where tests of means are involved, those in greatest need often fail to apply, either through ignorance of their rights. dislike of the means-testing procedure, or the difficulty found by the less educated and articulate in coming forward to establish their entitlement.
The effect of these factors has been clearly shown by Hilary Land in her study of families with five or more children in London, which stated that only 4 per cent. of those children under five who were entitled to free welfare foods actually received them. Slick proposals for additional selective benefits forget that many of our social services protect the unprotected, look after and rehabilitate the mentally sick, and compensate for what Professor R. M. Titmuss has described as society's "disservices" to the individual. These include the war disabled, those with infectious diseases, the chronic bronchitis sufferer from the mines and other industries, the industrially injured, the unemployed and the victims of road accidents.
And it is with the children of those who have suffered some of society's worst "disservices" that we are concerned in this debate. We are concerned also with tens of thousands of children whose fathers are not lay-abouts or even out of work. Many of the children who do not take the free school meals to which they are entitled have fathers who are in full-time employment. They are in


the wage-stop families, who fight a hopeless battle to make ends meet on a very low wage.
Of the three reasons advanced by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party for the failure of those in greatest need to apply for selective benefits, it may be thought that ignorance of rights is the most important. Indeed, I understand that the Department of Education and Science has recently spent about £20,000 on sending out a circular which is meant to
reduce the risks that parents qualified to get free school meals for their children ill fail to apply for them through ignorance".
As I have tried to show, there are factors very much more important than parental ignorance with which we shall have to deal if we are to humanise the school meals service from the standpoint of the deprived family. Indeed there are some well-informed people who doubt whether parental ignorance is really an important factor at all. A spokeswoman for the Manchester school meals service was quoted in theWythenshawe Express on 1st February as saying that she did not think that
there is any likelihood of people not knowing that free dinners were available".
And it is estimated that about 16,000 children and their families in Manchester today are living in poverty. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), both of whom have taken a close personal interest in this debate, will confirm that this is a very serious problem in the great urban area which we represent.
The situation nationally was well described in a letter which I received on 31st January from Professor John Yudkin of the Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, University of London. He powerfully criticised
the complacent attitude of those who assume that malnutrition cannot exist in our present affluent society
and he told me of a study which he was making into the health prospects of the children of families whose income was inadequate to ensure that they were properly nourished. He was concerned, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, not only with schools meals but also with school milk.
One of the preliminary findings of his study is that even children in an area which is by no means poor often go for as long as 16 or 18 hours without nutritious food. Another finding, of particular interest at this time, is that secondary school children taking school milk had better teeth, and were less frequently absent from school, than children who did not.
There will be those who will dismiss as unimportant not only parental ignorance but also other factors which I have mentioned for refusing school meals. They will regard what is said by low-income parents and their children alike as expressions of false pride. But the fact is that hundreds of thousands of children whom everyone agreed should be given free school meals preferred to go without. This is happening now and it is for the advocates of selectivity to show how their system can work without humiliating those, including children, whom selectivity is said to be intended to help. The selectivists must also explain why we should now be asked to extend a system which has been found so badly wanting in a service as vitally important as the school meals service.
I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to the social and human problems which arise from the failure of selectivity in this service. At the very least I hope he will announce his intention to try to devise a system by which the child receiving free school meals cannot be distinguished from the child who pays. This may well prove impossible, but I know that my hon. Friend is as well equipped as anyone can be to address himself to this task. His background is similar to mine. We both know from our upbringing the realities of life in a working-class neighbourhood and we are both case-hardened to the real meaning of the bright new concepts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know that he will want to reply as positively and as sympathetically as possible to this debate.

12.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for the compassionate manner, in keeping with his


normal practice, in which he has introduced this debate on the working of selectivity and trying to ensure that selectivity in school meals attains its proper objectives. I personally appreciate his kind references to me and to the similarities of our upbringing. Both he and I had free school meals when at school because of family circumstances and the difficulties of those days, and I was able personally to appreciate the main burden of his speech.
Before I deal with the sensitivity questions, to which I can assure my hon. Friend the Government attach the greatest importance, I will relate what has been happening in the last year. School meals have been priced at ls. since 1957 and will be going up to ls. 6d. this spring. Even at that figure they still represent a subsidy to the parent of 1s. 1d. per meal. When the Government decided to raise the price because the taxpayer's bill was increasing phenomenally, they associated that increase, properly in my view, with the desire to do something about the wide area of family and hidden poverty, particularly in large families. In short, they tried to discover how many children were entitled to free meals, how many were actually having them and then to set about putting the situation right realistically.
We were all shattered by a survey of the Ministry of Social Security published in the summer of last year entitled "Circumstances of Families". This showed that there were 500,000 children belonging to families whose incomes were below the normal initial requirements. Of that number, only 250,000 were taking the free school meals to which they were entitled. It was from that point that the Government began their operations. Children of parents who are unemployed or sick almost invariably get free meals, because there is a good link between the Ministry of Social Security and the local education authorities.
We judge that this is almost wholly a problem of the low wage-earners and their children. The very fact of the announcement by the Ministry, coupled with debates in the Press—and I pay tribute to what the Press has done in focussing attention on this—had a profound effect. In the autumn term, 1966.

on a given day there were 330,000 children having free school meals. One year later, in Autumn, 1967, the figure had risen to 404,000, an increase of 80,000, something near 20 per cent.
The discussion in the House and outside had focussed attention on the problem and brought nearly a 20 per cent. increase in the take-up of free school meals. The House will agree that this is a not insignificant figure. However, the Secretary of State and the Department were not satisfied and did not rest on their laurels. We felt that we had to get through directly to every parent to let them know of their entitlement. We thought about this and decided not to do it in a manner in which Governments normally approach the problem. by advertising on television, or in the Press. We thought that the proper way was to send a letter from the Secretary of State. bearing his signature, to every parent. That mammoth task, with the co-operation of local education authorities, schools and teachers was embarked upon at the end of last year. and I am glad to say has now been completed. It was a simple letter, its language designed to be clearly understood by every parent who received it. It set out clearly how they could judge their entitlement to free school meals if they thought their children should have them. It was sent on a prepaid basis, so that all the parent had to do was to sign his or her name to say whether he or she wanted the school welfare officer to call or wanted an appointment at the office of the school welfare officer, fold it over and pop it into a pillar box.
I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend and the House that there has been a tremendous response to that approach, which the Government thought extremely satisfactory. I have had specially obtained for this Adjournment debate the first few early returns from four county councils, 24 county boroughs and two London boroughs. These show a percentage increase in the take-up of free school meals. directly following upon the campaign of the Government. In the case of nine authorities there was an increase of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., in nine, between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., in seven between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent., in two


between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent., and in three between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.—very striking figures.
We estimate, therefore, that if the rest of the country—and there are 162 education authorities altogether—follow this pattern, as one would think, it will show an average increase of about 30 per cent. in the take-up. which would give us an additional 80,000 cases. If we add the 80,000 to the 80,000 already uncovered in recent years as a result of publicity alone, it means that we shall have found, by this campaign and these methods, at least 160,000 children who are now having free school meals which they would not have been having otherwise, which is a considerable measure of progress towards the 250,000 which the Ministry of Social Security survey uncovered for us. I know that my hon. Friend wit think that this operation has been worth every penny of the £20,000 which this has cost the Government.
The figures for two authorities, Nottingham and Liverpool, surprised us, because they showed an increase of only 5 per cent. Both these education authorities told us before we started our campaign that they were confident that in their areas they had already taken this matter so seriously that almost every case which was entitled to free school meals was getting them. It is a great tribute to both Nottingham and Liverpool that their contention was borne out by the fact that, although the average increase was 30 per cent., in their case a 5 per cent. increase was all that was necessary to meet the circumstances.
We have had one or two critics of the leaflet. I do not want to spend much time on them, except to say that people who criticise us, on political or psychological grounds, for sending out this leaflet, are saying that it should be no concern of the country if children of families living in poverty are not receiving free meals. I can only hope that on reflection and in the light of the figures I have given they will take a rather more charitable view of the true purpose of such surveys as this.
I now turn to the other extremely important question to which my hon. Friend addressed himself, namely, why do a large number of children who are entitled to free school meals not take them up? First, we do not know the

answers to all these questions, but we have commissioned a piece of research in which the London School of Economics, under the leadership of Professor Titmuss—the eminent sociologist who was mentioned by my hon. Friend—is looking at great depth at a number of sample areas, to advise us why people do not take up their entitlement.
We shall pay particular attention to what the research shows, but we wanted to act before the results were known, since it will take a year or two. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science sent out a circular in November last year—No. 12/67—in which he asked all local authorities to review their arrangements for the collection of school meals money. This was to deal with the selectivity problem particularly, to which we pay attention—what my hon. Friend, in the graphic case he outlined, described as the humiliation of selectivity.
We asked authorities, first, to review their arrangements, and secondly, to let us know of any good schemes they have by which it is impossible for any child in a school to know which other children are getting school meals free. We have now, therefore, a large number of good schemes available for local authorities, if they want them, and which we know work. As a result of this exercise, I can quite categorically say that there is no excuse at all for any school or local education authority in this country to operate a school meals system in which it is possible to distinguish who are the children getting school meals free from those who pay for their meals. It is a prime aim of the Government's policy to eliminate this sort of distinction, and we shall certainly keep it under very close watch indeed.
I am happy to assure the House that the sending out of the leaflet in November has already proved to be extremely worth while. There is a good deal of evidence that local authorities have had another look at their systems. In most cases the way to do this, we find, is to take the collection of school meals money right out of the classroom and give to the clerical staff in the school the responsibility for this operation, but, as I say, it is only one of many methods by which the objective can be achieved.
We are extremely happy at the response we have had. It is right that I should pay tribute to the local authorities who have co-operated extremely well with us, and particularly to the teachers and the teachers' organisations I personally consulted at an early stage of this operation.
The Government are determined to attack family poverty. The largest area of poverty is in large families. One other thing I ought to tell the House. From April of this year we are making available free school meals for the fourth and every subsequent child in every large

family without any means test whatever, since we are clear that this is the largest area of poverty still remaining in this country.
I hope the House will be satisfied that these measures, taken together, are a very vigorous and energetic campaign indeed, and are beginning to pay off in achieving the objectives which are not only those of this House but which are desirable and also necessary in any civilised community.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned acordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock